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
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 16, 2020. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0065], “the the second power” should be “the second power”.
At [0065], “the the third power” should be “the third power”.
At [0065], “the the first power” should be “the first power”.
At [0065], “the the second power” should be “the second power”.
At [0065], “the the third power” should be “the third power”.
At [0066], “the the second power” should be “the second power”.
At [0066], “the the third power” should be “the third power”.
At [0066], “the the first power” should be “the first power”.
At [0066], “the the second power” should be “the second power”.
At [0066], “the the third power” should be “the third power”.
At [0066], “the the second power” should be “the second power”.
At [0066], “the the third power” should be “the third power”.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. There is no balance control generator in the claims. The Specification mentions a balance control function and an external balancing device in [009], but never describes the balance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 has a font change which appears to be a cut and paste from another document.
Claim 20 recites “(AC)to (DC)” which appears to be “(AC) to (DC)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 20 begins with “The electric vehicle”, making secondary reference to “An electric vehicle” in claim 17. The secondary reference must remain consistent with “electric vehicle”.
Drawings
Figures 1A-II, 2A, 2B and 3 are objected to because there is insufficient labeling of the diagrams to make the drawings illustrative of the invention. Each diagram should contain reference numerals for description within the specification, and also some label to make the diagram helpful to the reader.
The following is a quotation from 37 CFR 1.84 (o)
Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible.
The Examiner requires additional suitable descriptive legends for understanding of the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Support for this rejection is further shown in MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note 1.
In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example “the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims-- or --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels”.
The Examiner requires additional text labeling to make the drawings illustrative of the invention.
The drawings are objected to because the numbering is improper. 37 CFR 1.84(u) requires figures to numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1. Applicant started with Fig. 1A-I. These should be FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6. There are no partial views that would require the use of a capital letter. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keister et al., U.S. Patent 11,292,352 B1 (2022).
As to claim 1, Keister et al. discloses a control unit comprising a central processing unit, which is connected to a memory and a communication unit, wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive first data indicative of exchanged electric power at a connection point (Column 15, Lines 7-21, Figure 12);
determine, using the first data, that a difference of exchanged power between a pair of power conductors among a plurality of power conductors is above a power threshold (Column 15, Lines 7-21);
provide to an electric power supply device a control signal indicative of a power setpoint for an energy storage (Column 15, Lines 7-21);
wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the electric power supply device (Column 15, Lines 7-33); and
wherein the electric power supply device is configured for power supply between the energy storage and power grid comprising the plurality of power conductors supplying electric power to the connection point (Figure 12, Column 15, Lines 7-33).
As to claim 2, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control signal indicates that the energy storage performs one of supply power to and draw power from at least one of the plurality of power conductors of the power grid (Column 12, Line 66 – Column 13, Line 19).
As to claim 3, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the power setpoint indicated by the control signal is based on a maximum difference among differences of exchanged power between the pair of power conductors among the plurality of power conductors (Figure 12).
As to claim 5, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first data is received from a measurement device connected to the connection point (Column 15, Lines 7-21).
As to claim 6, Keister et al. discloses a control unit comprising a central processing unit, which is connected to a memory and a communication unit, wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive first data indicative of a first amount of power supplied from a first energy storage to a power grid (Column 15, Lines 7-21, Figure 12);
determine, using the first data, that the first amount of power supplied from the first energy storage to the power grid exceeds a maximum allowed power (Column 15, Lines 7-21);
provide to an electric power supply device a control signal indicating the first energy storage to reduce the first amount of power supplied from the first energy storage to the power grid and to supply second amount of power from the first energy storage to a second energy storage (Figure 12, Column 15, Lines 7-33);
wherein the control unit is used for controlling the electric power supply device (Column 15, Lines 7-33); and
wherein the electric power supply device is configured for power supply between the first energy storage and power grid with a plurality of power conductors, supplying electric power to a connection point (Figure 12, Column 15, Lines 7-33).
As to claim 10, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the maximum allowed power of the power grid is set up by a service provider managing the power grid (Column 10, Lines 59-63).
As to claim 11, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the first energy storage is arranged at an electric vehicle (Column 4, Lines 26-44, Figure 1A).
As to claim 13, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the control unit is connected through a communication line with the first energy storage to receive the control signal via the communication line (Column 7, Lines 9-17, Figure 1A).
As to claim 14, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the first energy storage is one of connected to and disconnected from the electric power supply device via a power cable (Figure 7, Column 10, Lines 46-58).
As to claim 17, Keister et al. discloses an electric vehicle comprising an electric power supply device, the electric power supply device further comprising a control unit for controlling the electric power supply device, wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive first data indicative of exchanged electric power at a connection point (Column 15, Lines 7-21, Figure 12);
determine, using the first data, that a difference of exchanged power between a pair of power conductors among a plurality of power conductors is above a power threshold (Column 15, Lines 7-21);
provide to the electric power supply device a control signal indicative of a power setpoint for an energy storage (Column 15, Lines 7-21); and
wherein the electric power supply device is configured for power supply between the energy storage and power grid with the plurality of power conductors supplying electric power to the connection point (Figure 12, Column 15, Lines 7-33).
As to claim 18, Keister et al. discloses the electric vehicle of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the electric power supply device communicates the control signal to the electric vehicle through communication lines and using a communication protocol (Column 7, Lines 9-17, Figure 1A).
As to claim 19, Keister et al. discloses the electric vehicle of claim 17, and further discloses wherein a communication unit is configured to transmit and receive signals from one of the electric vehicle and a measurement device (Column 7, Lines 9-17, Figure 1A, Column 15, Lines 7-21).
As to claim 20, Keister et al. discloses the electric vehicle of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a Direct Current (DC) to Alternate Current (AC) and (AC) to (DC) converter (Column 8, Line 58 – Column 9, Line 13).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keister et al., U.S. Patent 11,292,352 B1 (2022).
As to claim 4, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 1. Keister et al. does not disclose three power conductors, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control unit of claim 1, as disclosed by Keister et al., with the use of three power conductors, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, where there are three power conductors.
See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keister et al., U.S. Patent 11,292,352 B1 (2022), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Keister et al., U.S. Patent 11,919,416 B2 (2024) “Keister et al. II”.
As to claim 7, Keister et al. discloses the control unit of claim 6. Keister et al. does not disclose a house, as claimed. Keister et al. II, discloses wherein the second energy storage is arranged at a house and wherein the power grid is configured to supply power to the house (Column 14, Lines 34-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control unit of claim 6, as disclosed by Keister et al., with the connection at a house, as claimed, as disclosed by Keister et al. II, with a reasonable expectation of success, using the connection at home, where the charging is commonly done, and allowing connection to the house electrical connection.
As to claim 15, Keister et al., as modified by Keister et al. II, discloses the control unit of claim 7. Keister et al. II further discloses wherein the house comprises one or more of the electric power supply device, loads, and generators (Column 14, Lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control unit of claim 7, as disclosed by Keister et al., as modified by Keister et al. II, with the house having and electric load, as claimed, as disclosed by Keister et al. II, with a reasonable expectation of success, using the connection at home, which would inherently include an electric load, allowing connection to the house electrical system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 12 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The issued patent from the IDS reference is made of record. The U.S. equivalent to the European patent citation is made of record. The published application of the present application is made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights