DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0148280 to Elder et al. (“Elder”) in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0084584 to Monks et al. (“Monks”).
As to independent claim 12 and similarly recited claim 1, Elder teaches: a system (¶ 0003, 0019. Elder discloses a system for a vehicle having integrated ports for accessories.) comprising:
at least one charging station for at least one accessory (¶ 0091. Attachment ports are configured to transfer power to or from an accessory. Under BRI, an attachment port configured to provide charging power to an accessory constitutes a “charging station”.); a plurality of sensors to monitor (¶ 0021, 0084, 0085. Sensors and electrical terminals are used to monitor whether an accessory is physically/electrically connected to the port. Under BRI, “accessory charging status” encompasses plug engaged/charging enabled/power transfer present.); and a controller to control allocation of power supplied to the at least one charging station (¶ 0091. Control circuitry manages and supplies power to the attachment ports.).
Elder does not disclose sensors to monitor vehicle power status, and fails to disclose the controller allocating power based on priority requirements as determined per each accessory.
Monks teaches a vehicle charging system for multiple electronic devices and accessories powered by a vehicle battery. Monks recognized the problem that the amount of available charging current may be insufficient to charge all the devices appropriately or in a timely manner (¶ 0004, 0016). To solve this problem, Monks teaches a controller that evaluates multiple devices and controls the allocation of power supplied to the charging stations based on priority requirements as determined per each accessory (¶ 0020). Monks further teaches allocating power based on these specific priority requirements, such as an accessory’s battery level or upcoming jobsite tasks, noting the controller will direct the charging station by “adapting the operation of the charging station to charge higher priority electronic devices before lower priority electronic devices” (¶ 0022, 0027).
Regarding the sensors to monitor vehicle power status, Monks teaches the charging station is powered directly by the vehicle’s power source (e.g., the vehicle battery or alternator) and the controller must evaluate the available charging current and capacity of the system to allocate power (Monks: ¶ 0004, 0016, 0032). While Monks does not explicitly detail the exact hardware sensors used to monitor the vehicle battery’s capacity, it is well known in the automotive arts that any system drawing auxiliary power from a vehicle’s primary battery utilizes standard voltage/current sensors to monitor the vehicle’s power status to prevent total depletion. See, for example, US Pub. No. 2019/0337394 (Butash) which evidences the state of the art by explicitly detailing a vehicle system control unit that monitors its own SOC and regulates exportable power based on a current fuel level and SOC of the ESS (¶ 0066, 0153). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the vehicle powered charging station of Monks to utilize standard sensors to monitor the vehicle’s power status as a basic necessity of evaluating the available charging capacity.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the control circuitry of the modular accessory charging ports of Elder to incorporate the vehicle power monitoring and priority-based power allocation logic taught by Monks. The combination intelligently manages finite vehicle power resources when multiple accessories are plugged into the vehicle’s cargo bed simultaneously. The combination yields the predictable and advantageous result of ensuring the most critical equipment needed receives priority charging, while protecting the vehicle from over depletion.
As to claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the priority requirements comprises a task or job to be completed on a work site (Monks: ¶ 0022-0024.).
As to claim 13 and similarly recited claim 3, the system of claim 12, wherein at least one accessory power requirement is determined for the at least one accessory, and wherein the controller determines available charge that can be provided by a vehicle power source, and wherein the at least one accessory is charged via the at least one charging station if sufficient charge is available (Monks: ¶ 0004, 0022, 0031, 0032. Monks teaches determining the specific power requirement for an accessory based on its profile and upcoming tasks, powering the charging station from the vehicle battery and evaluating the available charging capacity of the system to determine how power can be distributed, and conditionally charging devices based on whether the system has determined it has sufficient capacity/current available.).
As to claim 14 and similarly recited claim 4, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one accessory comprises at least a first accessory and a second accessory, and wherein the at least one charging station comprises only one charging station, and wherein the controller is configured to
identify a location of the charging station, determine the at least one accessory power requirement for each of the first accessory and the second accessory, determine which of the first accessory and the second accessory has charging priority, and communicate to a user which of the first accessory and the second accessory should be moved to the charging station (Monks: ¶ 0026, 0030. When there is limited charging station capacity, Monks teaches communicating instructions to a user to physically move devices based on their priority.).
As to claim 15 and similarly recited claim 5, the system of claim 14, wherein, when the first accessory is prioritized over the second accessory, the controller fully charges the first accessory and communicates to the user that the second accessory can be moved to the charging station once the first accessory is fully charged (Monks: ¶ 0011, 0030, 0035. Monks teaches queuing devices at a limited charging station based on priority and communicating specific wait instructions to user.).
As to claim 16 and similarly recited claim 6, the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one accessory comprises at least a first accessory and a second accessory (Elder: ¶ 0024), and wherein the at least one charging station comprises at least a first charging station and a second charging station (Elder: ¶ 0024. I.e., first attachment port and second attachment port.), and wherein the controller is configured to identify a location for each of the first charging station and the second charging station (Elder: ¶ 0023, 0068, 0100. Elder teaches identifying the particular port/ port information (i.e., which charging station), and the ports are physically arranged at known vehicle locations. So Elder provides the “location” via known port placement and the controller identifying which port is engaged.), verify that the first accessory and the second accessory are each connected to one of the first charging station and the second charging station (Elder: 0084, 0099. Elder teaches verifying plug-to-port engagement using electrical detection.), determine the at least one accessory power requirement for each of the first accessory and the second accessory (Monks: ¶ 0018, 0022, 0023. Monks teaches determining device charging need using device/service profile, battery drain, charge level, task context. These necessarily require determining each accessory/device’s charging requirement.), determine which of the first accessory and the second accessory has charging priority (Monks: 0022-0024. Monks teaches assigning a priority per device.), and simultaneously charges both the first accessory and the second accessory if the available charge is sufficient (Monks: ¶ 0016, 0031, 0032. Monks teaches charging higher and lower priority devices at the same time when capacity permits.), or when the first accessory is prioritized over the second accessory, charges the first accessory before the second accessory if available charge is insufficient to charge both the first accessory and the second accessory, and charges the second accessory subsequent to the first accessory if any remaining charge is available (Monks: 0004, 0016, 0030, 0041. Monks teaches insufficient power, priority-first sequential charging, and then charging lower priority afterward. Monk expressly teaches allocating charging from a limited vehicle source (vehicle battery, alternator, etc.).).
As to claim 18 and similarly recited claims 8 and 9, the system of claim 12, wherein the controller receives IoT data, vehicle sensor data, and/or user input data to determine priority requirements for each accessory (Monks: ¶ 0018, 0021, 0022, 0024, 0033. Monks teaches receiving data from the devices themselves (IoT data) and direct user input data, and using that data to determine the charging priority requirements.).
Claim 17 and similarly rejected claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder in view of Monks and in further view of US Patent No. 5,814,968 to Lovegreen et al. (“Lovegreen”).
Elder in view of Monks teaches the system and method of claims 12 and 1, respectively, including multiple accessories and power routing between devices. The combination, however, does not teach a physical arrangement where a second accessory is stacked on a first accessory, and the power is fed through the first accessory to charge the second.
Lovegreen teaches a modular battery charging assembly designed to charge multiple stackable electronic accessories from a single base charging station (Abstract). Specifically, Lovegreen teaches first accessory connected to the at least one charging station and a second accessory stacked on the first accessory (Abstract, claim 9). Lovegreen further teaches that these accessories feature internal electrical terminals disposed transversely through their top and bottom surfaces so that power is fed through the first accessory to charge the second accessory (Abstract, claim 9).
Claims 19 and 20, and similarly recited claims 10 and 11, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder in view of Monks and in further view of US Patent No. 9,725,027 to Hemphill et al. (“Hemphill”).
Elder in view of Monks teaches the system, the charging station, and the priority-based power allocation controller as detailed above. Elder, however, describes its attachment ports as recesses integrated directly into the vehicle’s outer surface (e.g., Abstract.). Elder does not explicitly disclose the charging station comprising a base plate mounted in a vehicle cargo area and having a connection interface with the accessory using a foot/aperture (i.e., interpreted as foot or aperture) connection.
Hemphill teaches a modular accessory mounting system for a vehicle cargo area comprising a docking plate (“base plate”) that is secured to a vehicle cargo bed (1:18-26). Hemphill further teaches a connection interface wherein the docking plate comprises at least one keyway (“aperture”) configured to receive a keyed protuberance (“foot”) extending from the back of the accessory track to securely lock the accessory to the vehicle bed (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the modular charging ports of Elder to utilize the docking plate and keyway connection interface taught by Hemphill. The combination provides a standardized, robust, and repeatable mounting structure in the cargo area for modular accessories.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Monks’s charging management teachings (¶ 0004, 0011, 0022, 0027) into the combined system to address scenarios where multiple powered accessories/devices are present and available charging current is limited, because Monks recognizes the amount of available charging current may be insufficient to charge all the devices appropriately or in a timely manner (¶ 0004).
The combination yields the predicable result of a vehicle cargo area with modular docking arrangement that mechanically couples accessories via a standardized docking plate while also providing aligned electrical interfaces for powering/charging, with intelligent allocation of available charging power among accessories.
As to claim 20, the system of claim 19, wherein the first power connection interface is powered using a vehicle power source (Elder: ¶ 0091, Monks: ¶ 0016).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851