DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 12/08/2025 in which claims 21, 28, and 34-35 were amended. No other claims were canceled or added, therefore claims 21-40 are pending for examination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pryor [US 2008/0028178] in view of Pozsgay et al. [US 6,928,372]
With respect to claims 21, 28, and 35, Pryor discloses a vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle [Fig. 2], the vehicle charger comprising: a controller [110 and/or 114]; a memory coupled to the controller [memory is an implicit component of a controller equating to the instructions and data for which the controller operates]; a user-manipulatable control coupled to the controller [120], mounted within the vehicle within reach of a user seated within the vehicle [100], and by which the user can enter a setting by which the vehicle charger charges the battery [par. 0018]; and a display coupled to the controller and also mounted within the vehicle within reach of the user seated within the vehicle, the controller responsive to entry of the setting by the user by displaying the setting on the display [par. 0018]; and wherein the controller is configured to use data and the setting entered by the user to control how the battery is charged [Figs 3-4, i.e. see at least item 152/154]. However, Pryor fails to explicitly disclose the controller retrieving data from the memory as part of the claimed list in order to control charging.
Pozsgay relates to a battery charging system and teaches a charger with a controller receiving from battery with a memory data from the memory indicative of at least one of a group consisting of a type of the battery, a manufacturer of the battery, a model of the battery, and an age of the battery [col. 2 lines 35-55] and sends that data to a memory/controller 311 of a charger so that the charging can receive and use the information in a charging operation [abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Pryor such that the battery included a memory/controller with the battery information (including type of cell) to send to a charger as taught by Pozsgay for the benefit of increasing efficiency of the recharging operation by collecting data on the specific type of battery being charged and using it in the charging control operation (i.e. minimum charge threshold linked to the type of battery).
With respect to claims 22, 30, and 36, Pryor further discloses wherein the user-manipulatable control is defined at least in part by the display [120, par. 0018].
With respect to claims 23 and 37, Pryor further discloses comprising a transmitter and a receiver coupled to the controller and by which the controller communicates and receives settings for charging the battery from another controller remote from the vehicle and the battery [124/126, par. 0021].
With respect to claims 24, 31, and 38, Pryor further disclose wherein the setting is a time of day [i.e. CIT and/or PCTT].
With respect to claims 25, 32, and 39, Pryor further discloses wherein the setting is a time of day by which the battery must be fully charged [146].
With respect to claims 26 and 33, Pryor further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to measure a charge level and voltage [par. 0016], however, fails to explicitly disclose the charge level is displayed simultaneously with the setting. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the already known and calculated information and simply displaying it on the already known display/user interface as such a feature is routine and well-known in the art of electric vehicles. The benefit to displaying the battery’s/vehicle’s charge level to the user allows the user to quickly and easily ascertain the remaining charge, i.e. like a fuel gauge in a gas car.
With respect to claims 27 and 40, Pryor further discloses wherein the controller, the memory, the user- manipulatable control, and the display are all located within the vehicle [100, Fig. 2].
With respect to claim 29, Pryor further discloses connecting the battery to a source of power via an electrical power cord [102].
With respect to claim 34, Pryor further discloses receiving at least one additional setting by which the battery will be charged from a controller remote from the vehicle and the battery [par. 0023-0025].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in pages 8-10 that Pozsgay does not use the data to control how a battery is charged, i.e. repeats that Pozsgay at most discloses a charger that receives data from a battery and uses the information “solely” to establish a time associated with a charging state of the battery and not for controlling charging as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. And here the entire basis of the rejection is a 103 rejection with Pryor as the primary reference and wherein Pozsgay is being used to modify Pryor. The question is what the combination makes obvious to the PHOSITA not what Pozsgay teaches by itself. As detailed in the rejection gathering battery type information, as taught by Pozsgay, enhances the charging operation performed by Pryor.
Additionally, the Examiner notes these same arguments where presented against Pozsgay in application 17/143,417 in which the patent board affirmed the rejection that used Pozsgay in the same manner.
Therefore, the rejection is proper, and thus maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859