DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/091,230 filed on January 2, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are still pending, with claims 1-3, 10, 15, 17 and 20 being currently amended.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112 Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to claim 10 are accepted. The 112(b) rejection of claim 10 is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the remarks filed January 2, 2026, Applicant argues:
Statement of the Substance of the Interview
Applicant thanks Examiner Henze-Gongola for the telephone Interview on October 27, 2025 with Applicant's representative, Eugene Krakow. During the Interview, proposed amendments were discussed. Applicant thanks the Examiner for the indication that the claims as discussed during the interview appear to overcome the current § 102 rejections, subject to further search and consideration. The claims have been amended as discussed during the interview. The Examiner is invited to call the Applicant's representatives if the Examiner believes that doing so would advance prosecution.
Examiner respectfully notes that after further consideration of Woody, Woody discloses the proposed claim amendments. Woody discloses receiving charge enabling or charge disabling instructions from a remote center (not a charger), and determining which instructions have been received [fig. 3]. Furthermore, the instructions are sent according to information regarding battery health that is sent to the center rather than the charger (par. 21, “Information from the charge control module, such as the state of charge (SOC) and/or state of health (SOH) of a battery cell or a battery pack, can be sent to the onboard telematics system module using the onboard data communication bus or architecture. The onboard telematics system module can then send the SOC/SOH data, GPS-based vehicle location data, and other data to a remote command center”). See the claim rejections below.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woody et al. US PGPUB 2009/0091291.
Regarding claim 1, Woody discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first electric vehicle, instructions for charging the first electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH], wherein:
the instructions are determined based on information associated with a second electric vehicle, different from the first electric vehicle, the instructions comprise first charging instructions and second charging instructions, and the second charging instructions are different from the first charging instructions [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH; thus multiple instructions exist based on information from a plurality of vehicles, for example if SOC is used to determine priority, then the SOCs of each vehicle are received by the center and different charging instructions (i.e. charge now, do not charge now (while another vehicle is instructed to charge now) are issued)];
determining, by the first vehicle, a selection of the first charging instructions based on vehicle information not accessible to a charger, the vehicle information comprising a battery health of a battery of the first electric vehicle [fig. 3; charge enable command (308) or charge disable command (312) are received, these commands are decided by a remote command center (not the charger) based on information including the SOH of the vehicle battery which is sent by the vehicle to the remote command center; thus the vehicle determines which command it has received (selected by the remote command center), based on information not sent to the charger, but to the remote command center (fig. 1, 116) pars. 21-22, 33, 44-45 & 47]; and
facilitating, by the first electric vehicle, charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions [pars. 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the vehicle charges according to the command from the center which can be a charge command or a do not charge command].
Regarding claim 3, Woody discloses wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions comprises adjusting an amount of power received from a charger for charging the first electric vehicle [par. 57].
Regarding claim 4, Woody discloses wherein:
the amount of power is a first amount when charging the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions, the amount of power is a second amount when charging the first electric vehicle according to the second charging instructions, and the second amount is greater than the first amount [par. 57; charging instructions (which are set according to various vehicle information, see rejection of claim 1) can allow for charging at different rates].
Regarding claim 5, Woody discloses wherein the information associated with the second electric vehicle comprises the second electric vehicle's state-of-health [pars. 21-22, 33, 39, 44 & 47].
Regarding claim 6, Woody discloses wherein the information associated with the second electric vehicle comprises the second electric vehicle's state-of-charge [pars. 21-22, 33, 39, 44 & 47].
Regarding claim 7, Woody discloses wherein the first charging instructions comprise initiating charging of the first electric vehicle at a first time, and the second charging instructions comprise initiating charging of the first electric vehicle at a second time, wherein the second time is later than the first time [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH; thus multiple instructions exist based on information from a plurality of vehicles, for example if SOC is used to determine priority, then the SOCs of each vehicle are received by the center and different charging instructions (i.e. charge now, do not charge now (while another vehicle is instructed to charge now) are issued)].
Regarding claim 8, Woody discloses wherein the first charging instructions comprise charging of the first electric vehicle at a first rate, and the second charging instructions comprise charging the first electric vehicle at a second rate, wherein the second rate is greater than the first rate [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47, 49 & 57; charging instructions can include charging at a regular rate (i.e. the second instructions) or at an intermediate rate lower (i.e. the first instructions].
Regarding claim 9, Woody discloses wherein the information is determined based on an input to the first electric vehicle, the second electric vehicle, an electric device, or any combination thereof, wherein the electric device is different from the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47, 49 & 57; the information is determined based on vehicle information and vehicle information processed by a remote center].
Regarding claim 10, Woody discloses further comprising:
receiving additional instructions for charging the first electric vehicle, wherein the additional instructions comprises third charging instructions different from the first charging instructions and the second charging instructions; forgoing the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions or the second charging instructions; and facilitating, by the first electric vehicle, charging of the first electric vehicle according to the third charging instructions [pars. 55-57; the center can receive instructions that conditions do not allow for charging to continue and to later reenable, thus additional instructions, which comprise third instructions (related to charge) for performing “subsequent” charging (fig. 3, step 320), the instructions are thus different temporally and in essence since they are instructions to re-enable charging after it has been disabled (the order of steps in fig. 3 being 308-Y, 312-Y, 320-Y); thus the first instructions (308-Y) are foregone by the second instructions (312-Y) and the third instructions are foregone by the third instructions (320-Y)].
Regarding claim 11, Woody discloses wherein:
the instructions for charging the first electric vehicle are part of instructions for charging a plurality of electric vehicles, the plurality of electric vehicles comprises the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle, and the instructions for charging the plurality of electric vehicles comprise instructions for charging the second electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH; thus multiple instructions exist based on information from a plurality of vehicles, for example if SOC is used to determine priority, then the SOCs of each vehicle are received by the center and different charging instructions (i.e. charge now, do not charge now (while another vehicle is instructed to charge now) are issued)].
Regarding claim 12, Woody discloses wherein the instructions are determined further based on information associated with the first electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; i.e. SOC of the first vehicle].
Regarding claim 13, Woody discloses wherein the instructions are determined by the first electric vehicle or the second electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; determined by information sent by the vehicles, thus by the vehicles].
Regarding claim 14, Woody discloses wherein the instructions are determined by an electronic device different from the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; determined by the remote center].
Regarding claim 15, Woody discloses an electric vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to execute a method comprising:
receiving, by the first electric vehicle, instructions for charging the first electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH], wherein:
the instructions are determined based on information associated with a second electric vehicle, different from the first electric vehicle, the instructions comprise first charging instructions and second charging instructions, and the second charging instructions are different from the first charging instructions [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH; thus multiple instructions exist based on information from a plurality of vehicles, for example if SOC is used to determine priority, then the SOCs of each vehicle are received by the center and different charging instructions (i.e. charge now, do not charge now (while another vehicle is instructed to charge now) are issued)];
determining, by the first vehicle, a selection of the first charging instructions based on vehicle information not accessible to a charger, the vehicle information comprising a battery health of a battery of the first electric vehicle [fig. 3; charge enable command (308) or charge disable command (312) are received, these commands are decided by a remote command center (not the charger) based on information including the SOH of the vehicle battery which is sent by the vehicle to the remote command center; thus the vehicle determines which command it has received (selected by the remote command center), based on information not sent to the charger, but to the remote command center (fig. 1, 116) pars. 21-22, 33, 44-45 & 47]; and
facilitate, by the first electric vehicle, charging of the first electric vehicle by the charger according to the first charging instructions [pars. 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the vehicle charges according to the command from the center which can be a charge command or a do not charge command].
Regarding claim 17, Woody discloses wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging comprises adjusting an amount of power received from a charger for charging the first electric vehicle [par. 57].
Regarding claim 18, Woody discloses wherein:
the instructions for charging the first electric vehicle are part of instructions for charging a plurality of electric vehicles, the plurality of electric vehicles comprises the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle, and the instructions for charging the plurality of electric vehicles comprise instructions for charging the second electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH; thus multiple instructions exist based on information from a plurality of vehicles, for example if SOC is used to determine priority, then the SOCs of each vehicle are received by the center and different charging instructions (i.e. charge now, do not charge now (while another vehicle is instructed to charge now) are issued)].
Regarding claim 19, Woody discloses wherein the instructions are determined by an electronic device different from the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; determined by the remote center].
Regarding claim 20, Woody discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by a system with one or more processors and memory [figs. 3 & 4; pars. 36-37], cause the system to perform a method comprising:
receiving, by the first electric vehicle, instructions for charging the first electric vehicle [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH], wherein:
the instructions are determined based on information associated with a second electric vehicle, different from the first electric vehicle, the instructions comprise first charging instructions or second charging instructions, and the second charging instructions are different from the first charging instructions [pars. 31, 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the charge enable command is received based on SOC, SOH, priority or a priority derived by a remote center based SOC/SOH; thus multiple instructions exist based on information from a plurality of vehicles, for example if SOC is used to determine priority, then the SOCs of each vehicle are received by the center and different charging instructions (i.e. charge now, do not charge now (while another vehicle is instructed to charge now) are issued)];
determining, by the first vehicle, a selection of the first charging instructions based on vehicle information not accessible to a charger, the vehicle information comprising a battery health of a battery of the first electric vehicle [fig. 3; charge enable command (308) or charge disable command (312) are received, these commands are decided by a remote command center (not the charger) based on information including the SOH of the vehicle battery which is sent by the vehicle to the remote command center; thus the vehicle determines which command it has received (selected by the remote command center), based on information not sent to the charger, but to the remote command center (fig. 1, 116) pars. 21-22, 33, 44-45 & 47]; and
facilitating, by the first electric vehicle, charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions [pars. 42-44, 46-47 & 49; fig. 3, step 308; fig. 4, steps 402-414; the vehicle charges according to the command from the center which can be a charge command or a do not charge command].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woody et al. US PGPUB 2009/0091291 in view of Ohtomo US PGPUB 2012/0249069.
Regarding claim 2, Woody does not explicitly disclose wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions comprises transmitting, by the first electric vehicle, information associated with the first charging instruction to the charger.
However, Ohtomo discloses an electric vehicle charging system [fig. 1; abs] wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions comprises transmitting, by the first electric vehicle, information with the first charging instruction to the charger [par. 27; the vehicle transits charging instructions to the charger when it’s time for charging].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woody to further include wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions comprises transmitting, by the first electric vehicle, information with the first charging instruction to the charge for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to instruct battery specific characteristics such as voltage and current instructions, as taught by Ohtomo (par. 27).
Regarding claim 16, Woody does not explicitly disclose wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions or the second charging instructions comprises transmitting, by the first electric vehicle, information associate with the first charging instruction or with the second charging instruction to a charger for charging the first electric vehicle.
However, Ohtomo discloses an electric vehicle charging system [fig. 1; abs] wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions or the second charging instructions comprises transmitting, by the first electric vehicle, information associate with the first charging instruction or with the second charging instruction to a charger for charging the first electric vehicle [par. 27; the vehicle transits charging instructions to the charger when it’s time for charging].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woody to further include wherein the facilitating charging of the first electric vehicle according to the first charging instructions or the second charging instructions comprises transmitting, by the first electric vehicle, information associate with the first charging instruction or with the second charging instruction to a charger for charging the first electric vehicle for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to instruct battery specific characteristics such as voltage and current instructions, as taught by Ohtomo (par. 27).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859