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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is recognized as April 26, 2024, in continuity with JP 2024-072011.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025 and January 30, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a “management apparatus” as appears in Claims 1, 3, and 5-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Sufficient structure was found on Page 12, which states, “In this embodiment, server 20, vehicle 10, battery 100, and EVSE 800 correspond to an exemplary "management apparatus," an exemplary "vehicle", an exemplary "power storage device," and an exemplary "power feed facility" according to the present disclosure, respectively” and Page 43, which states, “The function of server 20 may be implemented in the vehicle. For example, the controller of the vehicle may function as the management apparatus.” The management apparatus is a computer, which may be remotely connected or onboard the vehicle.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressman (US 20230382266 A1), further in view of Badger II (US 20220185126 A1), herein after referred to as Pressman and Badger II respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
Pressman discloses the following limitations,
A management system comprising: a management apparatus that manages a power storage device mounted on a vehicle, (Paragraph [0019], “The charge transfer timing system described herein may alleviate some of these issues by calculating the time required for the vehicle to charge the battery packs to the target voltage or energy level.” The management apparatus is a controller aboard the vehicle, Paragraph [0022], “The charge transfer timing system in FIG. 2 may be disposed onboard a powered system.”).
wherein the management apparatus is configured to instruct the vehicle to charge the power storage device in accordance with a charging plan that indicates a charging schedule in a plan period, (Paragraph [0014], “The time that is calculated may refer to a specific time of day in which the battery packs are predicted to achieve the target voltage and/or energy level, and/or may refer to an amount of time remaining, such as in the form of a timer, until the target voltage and/or energy level is achieved. The system and method described herein may be more accurate and precise at calculating the time required to reach the target than other charge time prediction systems at predicting the time to charge and/or discharge multiple battery packs of a powered system” a charging plan is created, and further, the controller also controls the charging, not just the determination of a charging plan, e.g., Paragraph [0060], “In an embodiment, if the revised charge time during the charge cycle indicates that it will actually take longer to complete the charging than initially calculated, the controller may take one or more actions to increase the charge speed of the battery packs.”)
the management apparatus is configured to obtain a power storage plan for the power storage device with respect to the plan period, (Paragraph [0036], “In that case, the target voltage and/or energy level may be a designated percentage (e.g., charge level) of full charge, such as 80%, 90%, or the like. The controller may not charge the battery packs to 100% capacity during normal operation to conserve battery life.” the controller commands charging and power storage with respect to one another, and the amount of time, e.g., Paragraph [0060], “In an embodiment, if the revised charge time during the charge cycle indicates that it will actually take longer to complete the charging than initially calculated, the controller may take one or more actions to increase the charge speed of the battery packs.”)
the power storage plan includes at least one piece of plan data that indicates combination of time within the plan period and a planned value of an amount of power storage in the power storage device at that time, (Paragraph [0040], “Another factor used by the controller to determine the predicted charge time is the pack configuration of the battery packs. As described above, the pack configuration may identify a sequence or order in which the battery packs are connected with the power source(s) that supply charging power to the powered system. The sequence or order may include the specific arrangement of the battery packs in strings (e.g., in series and/or parallel) relative to the power source(s), such as which battery packs receive power before other battery packs. The sequence may also include additional characteristics, such as the total number of battery packs, the total number of strings, the number of battery packs in each string, the arrangement of strings in the banks (e.g., in series and/or parallel), and/or the like.” And Paragraph [0048], “In an embodiment in which the powered system only has the first, second, and third battery strings to charge (e.g., not the fourth string), the controller may calculate the time required to go from the initial charging of the first string at the first voltage (e.g., 411) to the time at which the second and third strings are disconnected at the seventh voltage” the controller plans to target particular voltages at particular times until completion of the charging.)
However, Pressman does not disclose the following limitation,
and the management apparatus is configured to modify the charging plan in response to determination that the amount of power storage in the power storage device deviates from the power storage plan beyond an allowable range.
While Pressman does disclose to update the charging based on periodic measurements, it does not disclose updating the plan based on allowable range of power storage (Paragraph [0057], “In an embodiment, the controller may repeat the predicted charge time calculation during the charge cycle (e.g., while the powered system is receiving charging power from the power source(s)). The controller may repeat the calculation periodically, such as once every five minutes, while the battery packs are being charged. Repeating the calculation allows the controller to provide updated or revised predicted charge times to the operators. The predicted charge time may be updated or revised based on changes to operating conditions subsequent to when the predicted charge time was initially calculated.”). However, Badger II, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to update a plan based on an allowable range of power storage (Figure 4, elements 415, 417, and 419, and further, Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the charging system of Pressman, with the allowable range of Badger II, as this is a further detailed means of enabling the monitoring and updating battery status (Paragraph [0027], “However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle is configured to perform, in response to the vehicle receiving a discharging request directed to the power storage device within the plan period, discharging of the power storage device in accordance with the discharging request while the vehicle performs charging of the power storage device in accordance with the charging plan; and the discharging request includes at least one of a discharging request from a user and a discharging request under predetermined vehicle control. (Paragraph [0050], “Another factor that may affect the predicted charge time is the presence of any loads that will be drawing power during the charge cycle. For example, the charging power that is received by the battery packs is the net power in excess of any power that is diverted to loads. The loads can include the auxiliary loads and/or the tractive loads described in FIG. 2 . For example, assuming that the charging power received from the power source(s) represents the charge capability of the power source(s), the net power that is actually used for charging the battery packs may be the charge capability minus power diverted to auxiliary loads”)
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the management apparatus is configured to determine … a maximum amount of electric power chargeable to the power storage device by the vehicle per unit period and a maximum amount of electric power dischargeable from the power storage device by the vehicle per unit period. (Paragraph [0039], “The charge capability of the power source(s) represent the maximum power input to the powered system.” and Paragraph [0061], “For example, in order to increase the charging speed, the controller may deactivate auxiliary loads that are drawing power.” The schedule is created based on a battery charging speed, which is with respect to a maximum power, and the auxiliary loads may be limited to a maximum discharge.)
Badger II further already discloses the following limitations,
wherein the management apparatus is configured to determine the allowable range. (Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.”)
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the management apparatus is configured to obtain a measurement value of the amount of power storage in the power storage device in response to the vehicle being connected to an external power feed facility, (Paragraph [0037-0038], “The time required to charge the battery packs to the target voltage and/or energy level (e.g., the predicted charge time) may be based on various factors analyzed by the controller. … One factor is the current state of charge (SOC) of the battery packs. The current SOC provides the initial baseline energy level of the battery packs, which provides an indication of how much electrical power needs to be transferred before the battery packs achieve the target voltage and/or energy level.” When charging begins, the prediction is based on a measure of the power currently already in the battery)
and obtain the charging plan and the power storage plan for the power storage device by using the obtained measurement value of the amount of power storage. (Paragraph [0037-0038], “The time required to charge the battery packs to the target voltage and/or energy level (e.g., the predicted charge time) may be based on various factors analyzed by the controller. … One factor is the current state of charge (SOC) of the battery packs. The current SOC provides the initial baseline energy level of the battery packs, which provides an indication of how much electrical power needs to be transferred before the battery packs achieve the target voltage and/or energy level.”)
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle further includes a controller, the vehicle is configured to set in the controller, the charging schedule shown in the charging plan in response to the vehicle being instructed by the management apparatus to charge the power storage device in accordance with the charging plan, (Paragraph [0024], “In an embodiment, the one or more processors may be disposed in a single, unitary control unit. In another embodiment, the controller may include multiple different control units, such as one control unit per axle of a vehicle. The processors may be distributed among the control units. Each axle-level control unit may determine part of the information specific to that axle, and may communicate with a higher level control unit of the controller to determine the output charge time.” – the management apparatus may be a controller with multiple subordinate controllers, where the subordinate controllers then establish a charging schedule in accordance with the overall charging plan.)
and the controller is configured to carry out charging control for the power storage device in accordance with the set charging schedule. (Paragraph [0023], “ The controller may be operably connected to the other components of the charge transfer timing system via wired and/or wireless communication links to permit the transmission of information in the form of signals. For example, the controller may generate control signals that are transmitted to the other components to control operation of the components” and Paragraph [0024], “The controller may represent one or more control units or devices that are operably connected to perform the operations described herein”)
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit to the management apparatus, power storage information that indicates a measurement value of the amount of power storage in the power storage device in response to a prescribed condition being satisfied, (Paragraph [0057], “In an embodiment, the controller may repeat the predicted charge time calculation during the charge cycle (e.g., while the powered system is receiving charging power from the power source(s)). The controller may repeat the calculation periodically, such as once every five minutes, while the battery packs are being charged. Repeating the calculation allows the controller to provide updated or revised predicted charge times to the operators.” The prescribed condition is triggered at a periodic timing, to update the management apparatus.)
Badger II further already teaches the following limitation,
and the management apparatus is configured to determine whether the amount of power storage in the power storage device deviates from the power storage plan beyond the allowable range in response to the management apparatus receiving the power storage information from the vehicle; and modify the charging plan based on the power storage information and the power storage plan in response to determination that the amount of power storage in the power storage device deviates from the power storage plan beyond the allowable range. (Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.”).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
The management system according to claim 8, wherein the prescribed condition is satisfied when charging of the power storage device stops within the plan period, (Paragraph [0057], “In an embodiment, the controller may repeat the predicted charge time calculation during the charge cycle (e.g., while the powered system is receiving charging power from the power source(s)). The controller may repeat the calculation periodically, such as once every five minutes, while the battery packs are being charged. Repeating the calculation allows the controller to provide updated or revised predicted charge times to the operators.” The prescribed condition is triggered at a periodic timing, to update the management apparatus. Charging may end earlier than expected, and this deviation may trigger an update, i.e., it may trigger the prescribed condition Paragraph [0062], “Alternatively, if the updated charge time indicates that the battery packs will complete charging earlier than initially calculated, the controller optionally may take one or more actions. For example, the controller may send a notification to an operator informing the operator that the powered system will be ready for duty earlier than initially communicated.”)
Badger II further already teaches the following limitations,
and the management apparatus is configured to determine whether a degree of deviation between the measurement value of the amount of power storage at current time and the planned value of the amount of power storage exceeds the allowable range based on the power storage information and the power storage plan in response to the management apparatus receiving the power storage information from the vehicle; and modify the charging plan based on the power storage information and the power storage plan in response to determination that the degree of deviation exceeds the allowable range. (Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.”).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Badger II further already teaches the following limitations,
The management system according to claim 1, wherein the management apparatus is configured to obtain a measurement value of the amount of power storage in the power storage device at timing a prescribed time period before the end time of the charging plan, and extend the plan period of the charging plan in response to determination that the obtained measurement value deviates from the power storage plan beyond the allowable range. (Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.” Multiple checks are performed, ergo, the measurement value is obtained before the end time of the charging plan.)
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the management apparatus is configured to instruct the vehicle to discharge the power storage device in accordance with a discharging plan that indicates a discharging schedule in the plan period, and the management apparatus is configured to obtain the power storage plan for the power storage device with respect to the plan period of the discharging plan, (Paragraph [0050], “Another factor that may affect the predicted charge time is the presence of any loads that will be drawing power during the charge cycle. For example, the charging power that is received by the battery packs is the net power in excess of any power that is diverted to loads.” – an expected, current, or allowable discharge rate to loads of the vehicle may each constitute the discharging schedule in accordance to a discharging plan)
and modify the discharging plan … (Paragraph [0061], “For example, in order to increase the charging speed, the controller may deactivate auxiliary loads that are drawing power.”)
Badger II further teaches the following limitation,
and modify the discharging plan in response to determination that the amount of power storage in the power storage device deviates from the obtained power storage plan beyond an allowable range. (Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.”)
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1, except that the apparatus is part of the vehicle. Pressman discloses a vehicle (Figure 1) and that the management apparatus is part of the vehicle (Paragraph [0022], “The charge transfer timing system in FIG. 2 may be disposed onboard a powered system.”). Further, the combination of Pressman and Badger II teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 14 is also taught.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1. The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 15 is also taught.
Claims 2-3, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pressman and Badger II as applied to Claims 1 and 8, as shown above, further in view of Galbraith (US 20240343149 A1), herein after referred to as Galbraith
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the at least one piece of plan data included in the power storage plan includes … second plan data that indicates combination of end time of the plan period and the planned value of the amount of power storage in the power storage device at that end time. (Paragraph [0054], “In an embodiment, the controller may estimate the time period required for each of multiple different stages of the charge cycle, and then may aggregate the time periods to calculate the time required to charge the battery packs to the target voltage and/or energy level.”
However, the combination, as shown, does not disclose the following limitation,
wherein the at least one piece of plan data included in the power storage plan includes first plan data that indicates combination of start time of the plan period and the planned value of the amount of power storage in the power storage device at that start time,
Specifically, Pressman and Badger II both state their charging plan is only at least known once charging has begun, and do not clearly state if a start time with an expected charge at that time may also calculated (Figure 5 of Pressman, and Figure 4 of Badger II, respectively.) However, Galbraith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a vehicle management system may anticipate a state of charge at a time of arrival (Paragraph [0026], “Predicted information may include predictions of when and how many EVs will become available to charge (for example when they arrive at and plug into a charging station), depart from charging (for example when an EV is expected to be, or actually is, no longer available for charging, for example due to a target or actual departure), or EV arrival battery SoC, target EV departure SoC (for example a target EV SoC at a target departure time, which may be specified by an EV user, by the optimization system, and so on), charger availability, charging power cost information, time of use energy pricing information, and so on.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the charger planning of Pressman, as previously modified by Badger II, with the broader scheduling of Galbraith, as this improves the coordination of charging a number of vehicles (Paragraph [0026], “In addition, prior approaches typically do not generate predictions of information that can be used by an optimizer for controlling the EV charging, again resulting in missed opportunities for more optimized charging control.”). Further, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Pressman further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the at least one piece of plan data included in the power storage plan further includes third plan data at time after the start time of the plan period and before the end time of the plan period, (Paragraph [0054], “In an embodiment, the controller may estimate the time period required for each of multiple different stages of the charge cycle, and then may aggregate the time periods to calculate the time required to charge the battery packs to the target voltage and/or energy level.” – intermediate charging targets are established.)
Galbraith further already teaches the following limitation,
and the management apparatus is configured to obtain the third plan data based on at least one of the first plan data and the second plan data. (Paragraph [0026], “Predicted information may include predictions of when and how many EVs will become available to charge (for example when they arrive at and plug into a charging station), depart from charging (for example when an EV is expected to be, or actually is, no longer available for charging, for example due to a target or actual departure), or EV arrival battery SoC, target EV departure SoC (for example a target EV SoC at a target departure time, which may be specified by an EV user, by the optimization system, and so on), charger availability, charging power cost information, time of use energy pricing information, and so on.” When the system of Pressman is modified by Galbraith, the intermediate targets are based on the expected initial state and the desired final states, i.e., first and second plan data.)
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8. Badger II further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein when the vehicle performs charging of the power storage device before the plan period, the prescribed condition is satisfied at time of end of charging of the power storage device, (Figure 4 depicts that updates are performed continuously during charging, if charging is performed independent of a plan period, such as before a plan period, updates will be given continuously until a charging stops)
and modify the charging plan based on the power storage information and the power storage plan in response to determination that the degree of deviation exceeds the allowable range. Paragraph [0027], “The controller 37 will then compare the present battery SOC differential with the expected SOC differential in the compare step 415. Additionally, the max rate step 409 leads to the compare step 415. If the differentials match within a range, the controller 37 will continue to monitor the differentials. However, if the differentials do not match within a range, the controller will update the selected power request to match battery charging performance in update step 417. The controller 37 will then request the vehicle battery is charged with the updated selected electrical parameters in charge request step 419, followed by returning to monitor the battery SOC differential in compare step 415.”)
However, the combination of Pressman and Badger II as shown, does not teach the following limitations,
and the management apparatus is configured to determine whether a degree of deviation between the measurement value of the amount of power storage at the time of end of charging of the power storage device and the planned value of the amount of power storage at the start time of the plan period exceeds the allowable range based on the power storage information and the power storage plan in response to the management apparatus receiving the power storage information from the vehicle,
However, Galbraith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a vehicle management system may anticipate a state of charge at a time of arrival (Paragraph [0026], “Predicted information may include predictions of when and how many EVs will become available to charge (for example when they arrive at and plug into a charging station), depart from charging (for example when an EV is expected to be, or actually is, no longer available for charging, for example due to a target or actual departure), or EV arrival battery SoC, target EV departure SoC (for example a target EV SoC at a target departure time, which may be specified by an EV user, by the optimization system, and so on), charger availability, charging power cost information, time of use energy pricing information, and so on.”). If a vehicle arrives, it will arrive with an expected charge, and when the system of the combination operates, the plan does not need to be modified if the charge at arrival is an expected charge. However, if there is a deviation, the plan will be modified, as taught by Badger II.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the charger planning of Pressman, as previously modified by Badger II, with the broader scheduling of Galbraith, as this improves the coordination of charging a number of vehicles (Paragraph [0026], “In addition, prior approaches typically do not generate predictions of information that can be used by an optimizer for controlling the EV charging, again resulting in missed opportunities for more optimized charging control.”). Further, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Pressman and Badger II, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein the management apparatus is at least one computer on a cloud.
Specifically, the management apparatus of the combination is stored aboard the vehicle (Pressman, (Paragraph [0022], “The charge transfer timing system in FIG. 2 may be disposed onboard a powered system.”). However, Galbraith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a vehicle management system may anticipate a state of charge at a time of arrival (Paragraph [0026], “Predicted information may include predictions of when and how many EVs will become available to charge (for example when they arrive at and plug into a charging station), depart from charging (for example when an EV is expected to be, or actually is, no longer available for charging, for example due to a target or actual departure), or EV arrival battery SoC, target EV departure SoC (for example a target EV SoC at a target departure time, which may be specified by an EV user, by the optimization system, and so on), charger availability, charging power cost information, time of use energy pricing information, and so on.”). The system of Galbraith is operated using a server (Paragraph [0031], “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an outline of configuration of a reservation system according to an embodiment of the present invention. The reservation system comprises: … a server 200 placed in a communication center”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the charger planning of Pressman, as previously modified by Badger II, with the broader scheduling and the usage of a server as taught by Galbraith, as this improves the coordination of charging a number of vehicles (Paragraph [0026], “In addition, prior approaches typically do not generate predictions of information that can be used by an optimizer for controlling the EV charging, again resulting in missed opportunities for more optimized charging control.”). Further, the combination constitutes a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ricci (US 20180009330 A1) discloses a determination of a range for a battery parameter (Paragraph [0172], “he first sensed parameter 2600 increases in magnitude over the life of the battery pack or component thereof, with examples being leakage current and number of charge-discharge cycles, while the second sensed parameter 2604 decreases in magnitude over the life of the battery pack or component thereof, with examples being (maximum) stored or storable energy level, voltage level, output electrical current, state-of-charge, state-of-health, state-of-function, remaining cycle life, or remaining calendar life. … When the stored parameter magnitude is compared with the currently sensed parameter magnitude, a perfect match is not always possible or practical due to variations in operating parameters. To account for this variation, a match is deemed to exist when the currently sensed parameter magnitude falls within a standard deviation or range of the stored parameter magnitude.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights