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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. In particular, the independent claims contain limitations that are directed towards abstract ideas, laws of nature, or mathematical calculations, without claiming significantly more. This analysis will proceed through the Alice/Mayo test to show that the independent claims, as drafted, are not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
101 ANALYSIS – STEP 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to either an apparatus, method, or device.
STEP 2A – Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)?
Independent claims 1, 8, and 9 recite a series of steps describing a method for outputting an overload signal based on comparing gathered current values, which is an abstract mental process. Claims 1, 8, and 9 describe a vehicle-based unit, an evaluation unit, a subtraction unit, a comparator, and sensors. The components claimed in claims 1, 8, 9 are directed to generic computer components that are applied to abstract limitations. This contrasts with the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case, wherein the data transmission, or output, is integral to the improvement of the functioning of the computer, and therefore integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. (Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea.)
STEP 2A – Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception?
The independent claims 1, 8, and 9 only recite a vehicle-based unit, an evaluation unit, a subtraction unit, a comparator, and sensors, which are recited at a high level of generality within the claims. These additional elements do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application of the exception.)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to step 2B, in which any additional element or combination of elements is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, prong 2 is re-evaluated, to see if re- evaluation finds that the recited elements are unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. The examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea, where the gathered data is analyzed by an abstract mental process and outputted, similarly to the CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. case.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10 further define the abstract ideas presented in independent claims 1, 8, and 10 and are further grouped as mental processes and are abstract for the same reasons as presented above.
The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that claims 1-10 are not integrated into a practical application and are therefore not patent eligible. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revach, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0108819) in view of Kanamaru, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0009431).
Regarding Claim 1, Revach teaches: A method for monitoring at least one first and one second alternating-current output point in a vehicle (Revach, Para. 0022, 0031-0033, 0067 – monitoring the power at “one or more electrical sockets”, or output points, including an “outlet 102” having “two 120-volt sockets 108, 110” and “one or more 240-volt socket 111” and “a second outlet 103” which provide “AC power”), the method comprising:
detecting a total alternating current that is output by an inverter (Revach, Para. 0026 – “an outlet power inverter” which converts DC power of a bus 32 to AC power) via a distribution point to a first and second output points as a whole (Revach, Para. 0026, 0033-0037, 0056, 0069 – “set[s] of sensors” disposed between the “power bus 130”, or distribution point electrically connected to the “outlet power inverter”, and “the sockets”, where each sensor “outputs current and/or voltage measurements for that socket”; “the controller determines the total power draw on the auxiliary system” by a “summation of the power draws at each socket”);
detecting at least one first alternating current, which flows in the first output point (Revach, Para. 0033-0037 – a “set of sensors 150 may be disposed between the GFCIs 136 and the outlets 102, 103 and can be used to determine if power is being delivered to the sockets”; where “outlet 102 may include two 120-volt sockets 108, 110”, a first output point, and “one or more 240-volt socket 111”, a second output point);
determining a second alternating current, which flows in the second output point (Revach, Para. 0033-0037 – a “set of sensors 150 may be disposed between the GFCIs 136 and the outlets 102, 103 and can be used to determine if power is being delivered to the sockets”; where “outlet 102 may include two 120-volt sockets 108, 110”, a first output point, and “one or more 240-volt socket 111”, a second output point),
comparing the at least one first alternating current and the second alternating current with a respective threshold value (Revach, Para. 0059-0060 – “Each of the sockets have a predetermined upper current limit that is based on hardware of the vehicle”, for example “the 120-volt sockets may have a current limit of 20 amps and the 240-volt socket(s) may have a current limit of 30 amps”); and
outputting an overload signal if at least one of the comparisons shows that a threshold value is exceeded (Revach, Para. 0043, 0059-0060 – an “HMI”, such as an “application”, may be “configured to pop-up warnings on one or more of the pages responsive to sense conditions” including “current exceeding a threshold” and “power draw exceeding a threshold”).
While Revach teaches determining a second alternating current, which flows in the second output point, Revach does not teach determining a second alternating current, which flows in the second output point, as a difference between the total alternating current and the at least one first alternating current.
However, Kanamaru teaches determining a second alternating current, which flows in the second output point, as a difference between the total alternating current and the at least one first alternating current (Kanamaru, Para. 0077 – “subtracting the used power W1 at the first outlet 71 from the upper limit power Wmax that can be supplied to the outlets as the power that can be used at the second outlet 72”; where power is calculated based on detection results from “a voltage sensor” and “a current sensor” at the inverter and outlet).
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 method of Revach to include determining a second alternating current, which flows in the second output point, as a difference between the total alternating current and the at least one first alternating current, as taught by Kanamaru, in order to detect electric faults and overloading (Kanamaru, Para. 0007).
In regards to Claim 2, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 1, and Revach further teaches wherein the first alternating current is detected using a current sensor which is arranged in a first plug-in device which is connected to the distribution point (Revach, Para. 0033-0037 – a “set of sensors 150 may be disposed between the GFCIs 136 and the outlets 102, 103 and can be used to determine if power is being delivered to the sockets”, where the “GFCIs” are “ground fault circuit interrupter[s]”, or first plug-in devices, in connection to the power bus distributing power from the inverter; where “outlet 102 may include two 120-volt sockets 108, 110”, a first output point) or the first alternating current is detected using a current sensor which is provided in a second plug-in device which is plugged into the first plug-in device which is connected to the distribution point.
In regards to Claim 4, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 1, and Revach further teaches wherein the first alternating current is detected using a current sensor which is provided in the distribution point in a power path which leads from a connecting point of the distribution point to a first plug-in device (Revach, Para. 0033-0037 – a “set of sensors 150 may be disposed between the GFCIs 136 and the outlets 102, 103 and can be used to determine if power is being delivered to the sockets”, where the “GFCIs” are “ground fault circuit interrupter[s]”, or first plug-in devices, in connection to the power bus distributing power from the inverter; where “outlet 102 may include two 120-volt sockets 108, 110”, a first output point).
In regards to Claim 5, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 1, and Revach further teaches wherein the first alternating current is transmitted to an evaluation unit as a signal which reproduces a level of the alternating current, the signal is transmitted in a wired or wireless manner (Revach, Para. 0026, 0036-0037, 0044 – a “controller 140” in communication with the “plurality of voltage and current sensors”, where the sensors “are configured to output signals indicative of measured current and/or voltage” at the outlets to the controller which “may output information to at least one in-vehicle display 193”, the information including “current draw of the sockets, power draw at each socket, total power draw”, etc.; the outlets, having sockets, are provided “AC power” by the “inverter”).
In regards to Claim 6, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 1, and Revach further teaches wherein the inverter is a bidirectional charging power converter of the vehicle (Revach, Para. 0022 – “a “power inverter” converts “DC power from the battery to AC power” where the power inverter is also “capable of acting as a rectifier”, which converts AC power to DC power, such that the invert is bidirectional), the total alternating current is generated by the inverter by inverting a direct current of a direct-current source (Revach, Para. 0022, 0026 – “an outlet power inverter” which converts DC power, provided by “traction battery 20” i.e. the direct-current source, of a bus 32 to AC power).
Regarding Claim 8, Revach teaches: A vehicle-based unit for feeding vehicle-external loads by way of a vehicle-based energy store (Revach, Para. 0020, 0031, 0033 – “an auxiliary power system that allows the truck 10 to be used as a mobile generator”, the auxiliary power system having “one or more outlets” having sockets “electrically connected to a power bus of the vehicle” which receives power from a “power inverter” configured to “receive power from the traction battery 20, the M/G 18, or both”), the vehicle-based unit comprising:
an evaluation unit (Revach, Para. 0036, 0067 – “vehicle controller 140”) including:
at least one individual-current measuring input (Revach, Para. 0026, 0033-0037 – a “set of sensors”, where “each socket may include at least one dedicated sensor that outputs current and/or voltage measurements for that socket”),
an output for outputting an overload signal (Revach, Para. 0043, 0059-0060 – an “HMI”, such as an “application”, may be “configured to pop-up warnings on one or more of the pages responsive to sense conditions” including “current exceeding a threshold” and “power draw exceeding a threshold”),
a comparator (Revach, Para. 0036, 0056, 0067 – “vehicle controller 140”) configured to:
compare the current value applied at the individual-current measuring input and the difference with a respective threshold value (Revach, Para. 0056-0063 – the “controller may determine power consumption by monitoring a current sensor” and may determine a “current exceeding a threshold” or a “power draw exceeding a threshold” based on “a predetermined upper current limit” or “a user-specified current limit”), and
output an overload signal if at least one of the comparisons shows that the respective threshold value is exceeded (Revach, Para. 0043, 0056-0063 – an “HMI”, such as an “application”, in communication with the controller, may be “configured to pop-up warnings on one or more of the pages responsive to sense conditions” including “current exceeding a threshold” and “power draw exceeding a threshold”; where the threshold is “a predetermined upper current limit” or “a user-specified current limit”).
While Revach teaches determining a total-current (Revach, Para. 0056, 0069 – “the controller determines the total power draw on the auxiliary system” by a “a summation of the power draws at each socket”, where “power consumption” at each outlet having sockets is determined by “monitoring a current sensor”, i.e. a summation of individual-currents), Revach does not specifically teach a total-current measuring input, and a subtraction element set up to form a difference from a current value applied at the total-current measuring input by a current value applied at the individual-current measuring input.
However, Kanamaru teaches a total-current measuring input (Kanamaru, Para. 0045, 0072 – “a current sensor that detects an output current Ia of the inverter” for calculating a “total power” output by the inverter), and a subtraction element set up to form a difference from a current value applied at the total-current measuring input by a current value applied at the individual-current measuring input (Kanamaru, Para. 0077 – “subtracting the used power W1 at the first outlet 71 from the upper limit power Wmax that can be supplied to the outlets as the power that can be used at the second outlet 72”; where power is calculated based on detection results from “a voltage sensor” and “a current sensor” at the inverter and first outlet).
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 vehicle-based unit of Revach to include a total-current measuring input, and a subtraction element set up to form a difference from a current value applied at the total-current measuring input by a current value applied at the individual-current measuring input, as taught by Kanamaru, in order to detect electric faults and overloading (Kanamaru, Para. 0007).
Regarding Claim 9, Revach teaches: A vehicle charging circuit (Revach, Para. 0033 – “circuit for an auxiliary power system” of a “vehicle 10”) comprising:
a controlled rectifier configured to be bidirectional and having at least one first and one second alternating-current output connection (Revach, Para. 0022, 0026, 0031-0033 – a “power inverter 30 converts DC power from the battery to AC power” where the “power inverter 30 is also capable of acting as a rectifier”, where the power inverter 30 further provides power to an “outlet power inverter” to provide AC power to “auxiliary power system” having “electrical sockets” including “two 120-volt sockets 108, 110” and “one or more 240-volt socket 111”),
wherein one of these connections is set up to be connected to an alternating-current output point and a further one of these connections is set up to be connected to a vehicle-charging connection or a further alternating-current output point (Revach, Para. 0022, 0026, 0031-0033 – a “power inverter” converts “DC power from the battery to AC power”, or a vehicle-charging connection, where the power inverter is also “capable of acting as a rectifier”, where the power inverter further provides power to an “outlet power inverter” to provide AC power to “auxiliary power system” having “electrical sockets” including “two 120-volt sockets 108, 110” and “one or more 240-volt socket 111”, or a plurality of alternating-current output points);
a distribution point connected to the rectifier and connects the rectifier to the alternating-current output point and to the vehicle charging connection or to the further alternating-current output point (Revach, Para. 0022, 0026, 0031-0033 – “sockets”, or output points, “may be electrically connected with the power bus” which distributes power from the “outlet power inverter”, receiving power from the “power inverter”; where the sockets are “AC outlets”),
;
a second current sensor set up to detect a first alternating current which flows between the distribution point and the first alternating-current output connection or which flows between the distribution point and the vehicle charging circuit or the second alternating-current output connection (Revach, Para. 0033-0037 – a “set of sensors 150 may be disposed between the GFCIs 136 and the outlets 102, 103 and can be used to determine if power is being delivered to the sockets”; where “outlet 102 may include two 120-volt sockets 108, 110”, a first output point, and “one or more 240-volt socket 111”, a second output point);
a “set of sensors 150 may be disposed between the GFCIs 136 and the outlets 102, 103 and can be used to determine if power is being delivered to the sockets”; where “outlet 102 may include two 120-volt sockets 108, 110”, a first output point, and “one or more 240-volt socket 111”, a second output point)
a comparator configured to: compare the first and the second alternating current with a respective threshold value (Revach, Para. 0056-0063 – the “controller may determine power consumption by monitoring a current sensor” and may determine a “current exceeding a threshold” or a “power draw exceeding a threshold” based on “a predetermined upper current limit” or “a user-specified current limit”), and
output an overload signal at a signal output of the vehicle charging circuit if at least one of the comparisons shows that the respective threshold value is exceeded (Revach, Para. 0043, 0059-0060 – an “HMI”, such as an “application”, may be “configured to pop-up warnings on one or more of the pages responsive to sense conditions” including “current exceeding a threshold” and “power draw exceeding a threshold”).
While Revach teaches ascertaining a second alternating current, and the rectifier, Revach does not specifically teach a first current sensor set up to detect a total alternating current which flows between the inverter and the distribution point, a differential element set up to ascertain a second alternating current as difference between the total alternating current and the first alternating current.
However, Kanamaru teaches a first current sensor set up to detect a total alternating current which flows between the inverter and the distribution point (Kanamaru, Para. 0045, 0072 – “a current sensor that detects an output current Ia of the inverter” for calculating a “total power” output by the inverter), a differential element set up to ascertain a second alternating current as difference between the total alternating current and the first alternating current (Kanamaru, Para. 0077 – “subtracting the used power W1 at the first outlet 71 from the upper limit power Wmax that can be supplied to the outlets as the power that can be used at the second outlet 72”; where power is calculated based on detection results from “a voltage sensor” and “a current sensor” at the inverter and first outlet).
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 vehicle charging circuit of Revach to include a first current sensor set up to detect a total alternating current which flows between the inverter and the distribution point, a differential element set up to ascertain a second alternating current as difference between the total alternating current and the first alternating current, as taught by Kanamaru, in order to detect electric faults and overloading (Kanamaru, Para. 0007).
Claim(s) 3, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revach in view of Kanamaru, and further in view of Meyer, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2024/0286505).
In regards to Claim 3, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 1, but Revach does not teach wherein the first alternating current is detected using a current sensor which is provided in an intermediate adapter which is plugged into a first plug-in device which is connected to the distribution point and into which a second plug-in device is plugged.
However, Meyer teaches wherein the first alternating current is detected using a current sensor which is provided in an intermediate adapter which is plugged into a first plug-in device which is connected to the distribution point and into which a second plug-in device is plugged (Meyer, Para. 0038, 0058 – a “primary connector preferably comprises an energy measurement module (e.g., by means of a current sensor…) measures the current flowing through the supply cable”, where the primary connector, or second plug-in device, plugs into a “vehicle connection point”, e.g. “female contacts”, or first plug-in device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle charging circuit including the above limitations of Revach in view of Kanamaru to include wherein the first alternating current is detected using a current sensor which is provided in an intermediate adapter which is plugged into a first plug-in device which is connected to the distribution point and into which a second plug-in device is plugged, as taught by Meyer, in order to detect electric faults and prevent overcharging and overloading.
In regards to Claim 7, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 6, and Revach further teaches wherein the total alternating current is generated by the inverter by inverting the direct current which is output by a “an outlet power inverter” which converts DC power, provided by “traction battery 20” i.e. the direct-current source, of a bus 32 to AC power), but Revach does not explicitly teach a rechargeable traction battery.
However, Meyer teaches a rechargeable traction battery (Meyer, Para. 0001-0002, 0056 – “an energy storage unit”, or “charging a battery of a vehicle”, which “is intended to be charged via an energy supply device” such that it is “recharged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle charging circuit including the above limitations of Revach in view of Kanamaru to include a rechargeable traction battery, as taught by Meyer, in order to detect electric faults and overcharging when charging the battery of a hybrid or electric vehicle.
In regards to Claim 10, Revach in view of Kanamaru teaches the method of Claim 9, but Revach in view of Kanamaru does not teach wherein the threshold value for the alternating current that flows between the distribution point and the vehicle charging connection is larger than the threshold value for the alternating current that flows between the distribution point and one of the alternating-current output points.
However, Meyer teaches wherein the threshold value for the alternating current that flows between the distribution point and the vehicle charging connection is larger than the threshold value for the alternating current that flows between the distribution point and one of the alternating-current output points (Meyer, Para. 0041-0043, 0084 – “causes the vehicle 12 or the energy storage unit 11 to, e.g., transfer maximum current during energy transfer, or more specifically: not to exceed the charging current”, where the “charging current” is a current “between energy supply device 16 and energy storage unit 11” and is limited by a “maximum threshold”, such that maximum current during energy transfer from the energy storage unit is less than the maximum threshold of the charging current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle charging circuit including the above limitations of Revach in view of Kanamaru to include wherein the threshold value for the alternating current that flows between the distribution point and the vehicle charging connection is larger than the threshold value for the alternating current that flows between the distribution point and one of the alternating-current output points, as taught by Meyer, in order to detect electric faults and prevent overcharging and overloading.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zou, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0122580) teaches a power converter cartridge for a vehicle includes electrical outlets and coolant, data, and power interface ports configured to connect to corresponding ports of the cavity, a converter, and a controller configured to, responsive to a signal from the vehicle via the data port, cause the converter to convert power received from a traction battery of the vehicle via the power interface port to supply corresponding external loads connected to the outlets.
Cesiel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0378789) teaches a split-phase bidirectional on-board charger (OBC) which has separate charging and discharging modes, and includes a switchgear block connectable to an offboard charging station during the charging mode, and to an external alternating current (AC) load during the discharging mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights