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
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, 3-10, 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (US 2020/0384914 A1) in view of Duhme et al. (US 2024/0280238)
Re Claim 1 Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system comprising a battery, a lamp, and a controller configured to operate the lamp in different modes depending on vehicle state and battery charge level.
a vehicle comprising: a battery configured to power the refuse vehicle; a plurality of light bulbs; and a controller electrically coupled to the battery and the light
Sugimoto discloses a vehicle (FIG. 1, ref. 1) equipped with a battery (FIG. 4, ref. 31) configured to power the vehicle. The vehicle includes a communication lamp (FIG. 1, ref. 7; FIG. 4, ref. 7 FIG. 8 ref 41) and a lamp ECU (FIG. 4, ref. 32) that is electrically coupled to both the battery and the lamp. The lamp ECU functions as a controller and is responsible for managing the lamp’s output based on vehicle state and battery charge level (paragraphs [0025]–[0026]).
the controller comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processor
While Sugimoto does not explicitly recite “processors and memory,” the lamp ECU (32) is a control unit that receives input from the vehicle ECU (33) and voltage sensor (35), and executes control logic to manage lamp behavior. It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that such ECUs inherently comprise processors and memory storing executable instructions. This is a routine implementation in vehicle electronics.
cause the controller to: control the light to provide a safety function and/or provide visibility to a user of the vehicle when the refuse vehicle is in active operation
Sugimoto teaches that the communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the autonomous driving state of the vehicle while the vehicle is driving (paragraph [0021,5]). This indication serves a safety function by informing pedestrians and other vehicles of the vehicle’s autonomous status, thereby enhancing situational awareness and reducing risk. The lamp is visibly mounted in the headlamp housing (FIG. 1, ref. 3), and its output is exposed through a slit (FIG. 2, ref. 20), ensuring visibility during active operation.
control at least the first light bulb in the plurality of light bulbs to indicate a charge status of the battery when the refuse vehicle is not in active operation.
Sugimoto explicitly teaches that the same communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge level of the battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025], 29). The lamp ECU (32) controls the illumination of five LEDs (22) embedded in the light guide body (14), such that the illuminated range of the lamp increases with battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0028]). FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 illustrate this behavior, where the number of illuminated segments corresponds to discrete charge levels (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%).
Sugimoto does not necessarily disclose that the vehicle is a refuse vehicle and control at least a first light bulb of the plurality of light bulbs to function as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation.
However, Duhme discloses control at least a first light bulb of the plurality of light bulbs to function as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation. (Par 0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have configured the light 41 as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation.as taught by Duhme in order to provide indication to the user
The combination does not disclose that the vehicle is a refuse vehicle
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Sugimoto to a refuse vehicle, as the underlying control logic and lamp behavior are not limited to any specific vehicle type. The use of a single lamp to perform dual functions—safety indication during operation and charge level indication during inactivity—provides a compact and efficient solution applicable across vehicle platforms, including refuse vehicles.
Re Claim 3; Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the light to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises causing the light to remain on when the battery is fully charged, to remain off when the battery is not being charged, and flash on and off when the battery is being charged but is not fully charged.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a communication lamp (7) configured to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp ECU (32) controls five light emitting devices (LEDs 22) embedded in a light guide body (14), and varies the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0026]).
As shown in FIG. 5 and described in paragraph [0027], the system uses a flashing pattern to indicate partial charge levels. For example, when the battery is at 20%, a single LED flashes at a predetermined cycle. As the charge level increases (e.g., 40%, 60%, 80%), additional LEDs turn on sequentially and then turn off simultaneously, creating a pulsed illumination effect. When the battery reaches full charge (100%), all five LEDs turn on sequentially and then turn off together, illuminating the entire length of the lamp (FIG. 6(e)).
Although Sugimoto does not explicitly state that the lamp “remains on” when fully charged or “remains off” when not charging, the described behavior implies that:
At full charge, the lamp emits light across its full length, which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret as a steady or complete illumination state.
When the vehicle is not charging, the lamp ECU does not activate the LEDs, resulting in no illumination (paragraph [0026], “charge indication may be terminated…”).
During charging but before full charge, the lamp flashes LEDs in a sequential pattern to indicate intermediate charge levels (paragraphs [0027]–[0028]).
Therefore, Sugimoto teaches or suggests the claimed behavior: flashing during partial charge, full illumination at full charge, and no illumination when not charging. These patterns are functionally equivalent to the claimed “remain on,” “remain off,” and “flash on and off” states.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement these illumination states using conventional control logic, as they provide intuitive visual feedback to the user regarding battery status. The motivation is to enhance user awareness and simplify charge monitoring, as explicitly stated in Sugimoto’s goal to “clearly indicate the charge level… at a glance” (paragraph [0028]).
Re Claim 4; Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the light to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises adjusting the color of the light based on the charge status.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp ECU (32) controls five light emitting devices (LEDs 22) embedded in a light guide body (14), and varies the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0028]).
While the primary embodiment in Sugimoto focuses on varying the illuminated range of the lamp, the specification explicitly teaches that “the autonomous driving state and the charge level may be indicated in different luminescent colors” (paragraph [0010]). For example, the lamp may emit green light during autonomous driving and white or yellow light during charging. Furthermore, “the luminescent color may also be changed according to the charge level” (paragraph [0026]), which directly supports the claimed limitation of adjusting the color of the light based on battery status.
This teaching provides clear motivation to use color variation as a visual indicator of battery charge level. It enhances user understanding and allows for intuitive recognition of charging progress, especially in low-light conditions or from a distance.
Therefore, Sugimoto et al. teach or suggest the claimed behavior of controlling the light to adjust its color based on battery charge status.
Re Claim 5; Sugimoto discloses wherein the instructions further cause the controller to receive a command from a user device and wherein the instructions cause the controller to control the light to indicate the charge status of the battery in response to receiving the command from the user device.
Sugimoto disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a lamp ECU (32) controls a communication lamp (7) to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp ECU receives battery status information via a voltage sensor (35) and vehicle ECU (33), and adjusts the illuminated range of the lamp accordingly (paragraph [0026]).
While Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose receiving a command from a “user device,” it teaches multiple triggers for initiating charge indication, including:
Connection of a charger to the charging inlet (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be started when a charger 34 is connected…”).
Vehicle stop state, even without active charging (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be started when the vehicle 1 is stopped…”).
Time-based control, such as terminating indication after a set duration (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be terminated after a predetermined time…”).
These control mechanisms imply that the lamp ECU is responsive to external events and commands, whether from the charger, vehicle ECU, or other interfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend this control to include commands from a user device (e.g., smartphone, onboard interface), especially given the widespread use of mobile apps and remote vehicle management systems in electric vehicles.
The motivation is clear: enabling users to manually query or trigger battery status indication enhances usability and aligns with modern vehicle control paradigms. The implementation would involve standard communication protocols between the user device and the vehicle ECU or lamp ECU, which are routine in the art.
Re Claim 6; Sugimoto discloses wherein the plurality of light bulbs are arranged in a plurality of rows of multiple bulbs and wherein controlling at least the first light bulb to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises illuminating a number of rows of bulbs corresponding to a charge level of the battery.
Sugimoto disclose a communication lamp (7) configured to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22) spaced along its length (FIG. 3; paragraph [0023]). These LEDs are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to vary the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0026]).
As shown in FIG. 5 and described in paragraph [0027], the number of illuminated LEDs increases with battery charge:
At 20% charge, one LED flashes.
At 40%, two LEDs flash sequentially.
At 60%, three LEDs flash.
At 80%, four LEDs flash.
At 100%, all five LEDs flash, illuminating the full length of the lamp (FIG. 6(e)).
This behavior directly corresponds to the claimed limitation of “illuminating a number of bulbs corresponding to a charge level of the battery.” While Sugimoto uses LEDs rather than traditional bulbs, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that LEDs are a type of light-emitting element commonly used in modern vehicle lighting systems. The term “bulbs” in the claim is broad enough to encompass LEDs, especially in the context of vehicle lighting.
The motivation for this configuration is clearly stated in Sugimoto: to allow the driver to “easily check the charge level of the battery… based on the gradual increase in the illuminated range” (paragraph [0028]). This provides intuitive visual feedback and eliminates the need for separate display systems.
Re Claim 7 Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling at least the first light bulb to indicate the charge status of the battery comprises adjusting the brightness of the first light bulb based on the charge level of the battery.
Sugimoto disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to vary the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0026]).
As described in paragraph [0027], the number of LEDs turned on increases with battery charge level, progressing from one LED at 20% to all five LEDs at 100%. This results in a larger illuminated portion of the lamp as the charge increases. While Sugimoto primarily emphasizes spatial illumination (i.e., range), the underlying control mechanism inherently affects brightness: more LEDs activated simultaneously produce greater total luminous output.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing the number of active light sources directly increases perceived brightness, especially in a linear or clustered lamp configuration. Furthermore, Sugimoto teaches that the lamp ECU controls the output of each LED individually (paragraph [0025]), which implies the ability to modulate intensity per device. This provides the flexibility to implement brightness-based indication schemes, either in addition to or instead of spatial range variation.
The motivation is clear: adjusting brightness based on charge level offers an intuitive and scalable way to convey battery status, particularly in compact lamp designs or when spatial expansion is limited.
Re Claim 8; Sugimoto discloses A vehicle comprising: a battery configured to power the vehicle; a plurality of rear facing lights bulb on the rear portion of the vehicle (Par 0029, Fig. 8); and a controller electrically coupled to the battery and the lights, the controller comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to: when the vehicle is not in active operation, control the lights bulb to indicate a charge status of the vehicle.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle (FIG. 1, ref. 1) equipped with a battery (FIG. 4, ref. 31) configured to power the vehicle. The vehicle includes a communication lamp (FIG. 1, ref. 7; FIG. 4, ref. 7) and a lamp ECU (FIG. 4, ref. 32) that is electrically coupled to both the battery and the lamp. The lamp ECU functions as a controller and is responsible for managing the lamp’s output based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0021], [0025]).
the lamp ECU (32) is a control unit that receives input from the vehicle ECU (33) and voltage sensor (35), and executes control logic to manage lamp behavior. It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that such ECUs inherently comprise processors and memory storing executable instructions. This is a routine implementation in vehicle electronics.
The lamp ECU controls the communication lamp to indicate the charge status of the battery while the vehicle is stationary. As described in paragraph [0026], the ECU adjusts the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level, using a pattern of sequential activation of five LEDs (22) embedded in the light guide body (14). FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 illustrate this behavior, where the number of illuminated segments corresponds to discrete charge levels (20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%).
Sugimoto does not necessarily when the vehicle is in active operation, control at least one of the plurality of light bulbs to indicate that the vehicle in a reverse gear or that brake of the vehicle is engaged.
However, Duhme discloses when the vehicle is in active operation, control at least one of the plurality of light bulbs to indicate that the vehicle in a reverse gear or that brake of the vehicle is engaged. (Par 0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have configured the light 41 as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation.as taught by Duhme in order to provide indication to the user
Re Claim 9; Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the lights to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises illuminating a number of lights based on a charge level of the battery.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to vary the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0026]).
As described in paragraph [0027] and illustrated in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, the number of LEDs turned on increases with battery charge:
At 20% charge, one LED flashes.
At 40%, two LEDs flash sequentially.
At 60%, three LEDs flash.
At 80%, four LEDs flash.
At 100%, all five LEDs flash, illuminating the full length of the lamp.
This behavior directly corresponds to the claimed limitation of “illuminating a number of lights based on a charge level of the battery.” The LEDs function as discrete lighting elements whose activation count reflects the battery’s state of charge. Although Sugimoto refers to “light emitting devices” rather than “lights,” one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that LEDs are a type of light source commonly used in vehicle lighting systems, and the terminology is interchangeable in this context.
To allow the driver to “easily check the charge level of the battery… based on the gradual increase in the illuminated range” (paragraph [0028]). This provides intuitive visual feedback and eliminates the need for separate display systems.
Re Claim 10; Sugimoto discloses wherein the controller is configured to be connected to an external power supply, wherein controlling the lights to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises directing power from the power supply to the lights.
Sugimoto disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a lamp ECU (32) controls a communication lamp (7) to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The system includes a charger (34) that connects to a charging inlet (9) on the vehicle body (FIG. 1; FIG. 4), supplying power to the battery during charging.
Paragraph [0026] explains that charge indication may begin when the charger is connected to the vehicle, and that the lamp ECU controls the LEDs (22) in the communication lamp to reflect the battery’s charge level. This implies that the lamp ECU is aware of and responsive to the presence of an external power supply and uses that connection as a trigger to begin illuminating the lamp.
While Sugimoto does not explicitly state that power from the charger is “directed to the lights,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the vehicle’s electrical system powered by the external charger during charging—can supply power to both the battery and the lighting system. In modern electric vehicles, auxiliary systems such as indicator lamps are routinely powered during charging sessions to provide user feedback. The lamp ECU (32), being electrically coupled to both the battery and the communication lamp, would naturally draw power from the active supply path during charging.
The motivation is clear: enabling the lamp to operate during charging provides immediate visual feedback to the user regarding battery status, as emphasized in Sugimoto’s goal of “clearly indicating the charge level… at a glance” (paragraph [0028]).
Re Claim 12; Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the plurality of light bulb to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises causing one of the plurality of lights to flash on and off when the battery is being charged but is not fully charged.”
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to reflect the battery’s charge level.
As described in paragraph [0027], when the battery is at 20% charge, a single LED flashes at a predetermined cycle. This behavior is illustrated in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6(a), where only one segment of the lamp is illuminated intermittently to indicate a low charge state. As the battery charges further, additional LEDs flash sequentially, increasing the illuminated range (paragraphs [0027]–[0028]).
This directly corresponds to the claimed limitation of “causing one of the plurality of lights to flash on and off when the battery is being charged but is not fully charged.” Sugimoto teaches that flashing behavior is used to indicate intermediate charge levels, and that the number of flashing LEDs increases with battery charge. The system begins with a single flashing LED at low charge, satisfying the condition of one light flashing during charging. To allow the driver to “easily check the charge level of the battery… based on the gradual increase in the illuminated range” (paragraph [0028]). Flashing behavior enhances visibility and draws attention to the charge status, especially in low-light conditions.
Re Claim 13; Sugimoto discloses wherein the instructions further cause the controller to receive a command from a user device and wherein the instructions cause the controller to control the lights to indicate the charge status of the battery in response to receiving the command from the user device.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a lamp ECU (32) controls a communication lamp (7) to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp ECU receives battery status information via a voltage sensor (35) and vehicle ECU (33), and adjusts the illuminated range of the lamp accordingly (paragraph [0026]).
While Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose receiving a command from a “user device,” it teaches multiple external triggers for initiating charge indication, including:
Connection of a charger to the charging inlet (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be started when a charger 34 is connected…”).
Vehicle stop state, even without active charging (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be started when the vehicle 1 is stopped…”).
Time-based control, such as terminating indication after a set duration (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be terminated after a predetermined time…”).
These control mechanisms imply that the lamp ECU is responsive to external events and commands, whether from the charger, vehicle ECU, or other interfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend this control to include commands from a user device (e.g., smartphone, onboard interface), especially given the widespread use of mobile apps and remote vehicle management systems in electric vehicles.
The motivation is clear: enabling users to manually query or trigger battery status indication enhances usability and aligns with modern vehicle control paradigms. The implementation would involve standard communication protocols between the user device and the vehicle ECU or lamp ECU, which are routine in the art.
Re Claim 14; Sugimoto discloses wherein the lights are controlled to indicate the charge status is displayed for a predetermined amount of time in response to receiving the command from the user device.
Sugimoto disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp ECU (32) controls a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22) embedded in a light guide body (14), and adjusts the illuminated range of the lamp based on battery charge level (paragraphs [0024]–[0026]).
While Sugimoto does not explicitly disclose receiving a command from a “user device,” it teaches that charge indication may be triggered by external events such as:
Connection of a charger (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be started when a charger 34 is connected…”),
Vehicle stop state (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be started when the vehicle 1 is stopped…”), and
Time-based termination (paragraph [0026]: “Charge indication may be terminated after a predetermined time has elapsed since full charging, or after a predetermined time has elapsed since the start of the charge indication.”).
This demonstrates that Sugimoto teaches the concept of displaying charge status for a predetermined amount of time, even if not explicitly in response to a user device command. The system is designed to automatically terminate the indication after a set duration, which satisfies the claimed temporal control behavior.
Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the control logic to accept a command from a user device (e.g., smartphone or onboard interface), especially given the prevalence of remote vehicle management systems. The motivation is to enhance user interaction and allow manual querying of battery status, which is consistent with Sugimoto’s goal of providing clear and accessible charge level feedback (paragraph [0028]).
Combining Sugimoto’s time-based control with user-initiated triggers would have been a routine design choice to improve usability without requiring undue experimentation.
Re Claim 15; Sugimoto discloses wherein the plurality of lights form a plurality of rows of lights, wherein controlling the lights to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises illuminating a number of rows of lights based on a charge level of the battery.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to reflect the battery’s charge level.
As described in paragraph [0023], the light guide body includes a trunk portion (23) and a plurality of branch portions (24) that extend obliquely from the trunk to the respective LEDs. These branch portions are covered by short segments of the shade (26), and each LED is held at the top of its corresponding branch. This configuration results in a segmented lamp structure, where each LED illuminates a distinct portion of the guide body.
Although Sugimoto does not explicitly refer to these segments as “rows,” the physical layout of the lamp with multiple branch portions arranged along a curved trunk creates a visual effect equivalent to rows of lights. FIG. 3 illustrates this arrangement, showing how each LED corresponds to a distinct illuminated segment. Paragraph [0024] further explains that the illuminated range of the trunk portion increases with battery charge level, as more LEDs are activated.
This behavior directly corresponds to the claimed limitation of “illuminating a number of rows of lights based on a charge level of the battery.” The segmented structure and sequential activation of LEDs produce a row-like visual progression, where each “row” represents a discrete charge increment.
The motivation is clearly stated in Sugimoto: to allow the driver to “easily check the charge level of the battery… based on the gradual increase in the illuminated range” (paragraph [0028]). Using a row-based visual indicator enhances clarity and scalability, especially for larger or more complex lamp configurations.
Re Claim 16; Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the lights to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises illuminating all of the lights when the battery is fully charged and illuminating none of the lights when the battery is below a threshold level of charge.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to reflect the battery’s charge level.
As described in paragraph [0027], the number of LEDs turned on increases with battery charge level. Specifically:
At 20% charge, one LED flashes.
At 40%, two LEDs flash sequentially.
At 60%, three LEDs flash.
At 80%, four LEDs flash.
At 100%, all five LEDs flash, illuminating the full length of the lamp (FIG. 6(e)).
This behavior satisfies the claimed limitation of “illuminating all of the lights when the battery is fully charged.” The system uses full activation of all LEDs to indicate 100% charge, providing maximum luminous output and visual clarity.
While Sugimoto does not explicitly state that “none of the lights” are illuminated when the battery is below a threshold, paragraph [0026] teaches that charge indication may be terminated after a predetermined time or when charging is not in progress. This implies that the lamp ECU can deactivate all LEDs, resulting in no illumination. Additionally, the system begins with only one LED flashing at 20% charge, suggesting that below this level, no LEDs may be active.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to implement a threshold-based cutoff where no lights are illuminated below a certain battery level, as this conserves energy and avoids misleading the user. The motivation is to provide clear, intuitive feedback regarding battery status, as emphasized in Sugimoto’s goal of allowing the driver to “easily check the charge level… at a glance” (paragraph [0028]).
Re Claim 17 Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the lights to indicate a charge status of the battery comprises illuminating all of the lights when the battery is fully charged and causing one or more lights to flash on and off when the battery is charging and is below a threshold level of charge.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to reflect the battery’s charge level.
As described in paragraph [0027], the number of LEDs turned on increases with battery charge level. Specifically:
At 20% charge, one LED flashes at a predetermined cycle (FIG. 6(a)).
At 40%, two LEDs flash sequentially (FIG. 6(b)).
At 60% and 80%, three and four LEDs flash respectively (FIG. 6(c), 6(d)).
At 100% charge, all five LEDs flash together, illuminating the full length of the lamp (FIG. 6(e)).
This behavior directly supports the claimed limitation. The system uses flashing patterns to indicate intermediate charge levels and full illumination to indicate full charge. Although Sugimoto describes the LEDs flashing even at full charge, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flashing behavior could be modified to steady illumination at full charge, or interpreted as full activation regardless of flashing mode. The key functional outcome maximum luminous output at full charge and partial flashing below a threshold is clearly taught.
The motivation is to provide intuitive visual feedback to the user, allowing them to “easily check the charge level of the battery… based on the gradual increase in the illuminated range” (paragraph [0028]). Flashing behavior at lower charge levels draws attention to incomplete charging, while full illumination signals completion.
Re Claim 18 Sugimoto discloses A method of operating a battery-powered vehicle having a battery and a plurality of lights the method comprising: determining a charge status of the battery; and controlling the lights to indicate the charge status of the battery.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a method of operating a battery-powered vehicle (FIG. 1, ref. 1) equipped with a battery (FIG. 4, ref. 31) and a communication lamp (FIG. 1, ref. 7; FIG. 4, ref. 7) that serves dual functions: indicating autonomous driving status during vehicle operation and indicating battery charge status while stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]).
when the vehicle is not in active operation Regarding the step: “determining a charge status of the battery”
Sugimoto teaches that the battery charge level is detected by a voltage sensor (35) attached to the battery (31), and this information is communicated to the lamp ECU (32) via the vehicle ECU (33) (paragraph [0026]). This satisfies the claimed step of determining the charge status of the battery.
Regarding the step: controlling the lights to indicate the charge status of the battery
Sugimoto discloses that the lamp ECU (32) controls five light emitting devices (LEDs 22) embedded in a light guide body (14) to reflect the battery’s charge level. As described in paragraph [0027], the number of LEDs illuminated increases with battery charge level, progressing from one flashing LED at 20% to full illumination at 100% (FIG. 5; FIG. 6(a)–(e)). This control logic directly corresponds to the claimed step of controlling the lights to indicate battery status.
Additionally, the communication lamp is mounted in the headlamp housing and emits light through a front-facing slit (20), ensuring visibility to users and pedestrians (paragraph [0022]). This satisfies the requirement that the lights are configured to provide safety functions and/or visibility.
To allow the driver to “easily check the charge level of the battery… at a glance” (paragraph [0028]). The method integrates standard sensing and control components to deliver intuitive visual feedback, which would have been a routine implementation for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Sugimoto does not necessarily disclose control at least a first light bulb of the plurality of light bulbs to function as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation.
However, Duhme discloses control at least a first light bulb of the plurality of light bulbs to function as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation. (Par 0047)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have configured the light 41 as a tail light, a backup light or a brake light when the vehicle is in active operation.as taught by Duhme in order to provide indication to the user
Re Claims 19 and 20; Sugimoto discloses wherein controlling the lights to indicate the charge status of the battery comprises illuminating a percentage of the lights corresponding to a percent of battery charge stored in the battery.
Sugimoto et al. disclose a vehicle lamp system in which a communication lamp (7) is used to indicate the charge status of a battery (31) while the vehicle is stationary (paragraphs [0021], [0025]). The lamp comprises a light guide body (14) and a plurality of light emitting devices (LEDs 22), which are individually controlled by a lamp ECU (32) to reflect the battery’s charge level.
As described in paragraph [0027], the number of LEDs turned on increases in proportion to the battery’s charge level:
At 20% charge, one LED flashes.
At 40%, two LEDs flash sequentially.
At 60%, three LEDs flash.
At 80%, four LEDs flash.
At 100%, all five LEDs flash (FIG. 5; FIG. 6(a)–(e)).
This behavior directly corresponds to the claimed limitation of “illuminating a percentage of the lights corresponding to a percent of battery charge.” Sugimoto’s system uses five discrete LEDs, each representing approximately 20% of the battery’s capacity. As the charge increases, more LEDs are activated, providing a visual representation of the battery’s state of charge in proportional increments.
Although Sugimoto uses discrete steps rather than a continuous percentage scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that increasing the number of illuminated segments in proportion to charge level is a standard and intuitive method of conveying battery status. The motivation is clearly stated in paragraph [0028]: to allow the driver to “easily check the charge level of the battery… based on the gradual increase in the illuminated range.”
Re Claim 21; the combination of Sugimoto in view of Duhme discloses wherein the controller is configured to control each of the plurality of light bulbs to function as a tail light, a backup light, or a brake light when the refuse vehicle is in active operation, and to control all of the plurality of light bulbs to collectively indicate the charge status of the battery when the refuse vehicle is not in active operation.
Re Claim 22; Duhme discloses wherein the plurality of light bulbs are positioned in at least two regions of the refuse vehicle selected from (a) an upper driver side region, (b) a lower driver side region, (c) an upper passenger side region, and (d) a lower passenger side region, wherein the controller is configured to illuminate light bulbs in a number of regions corresponding to the charge status. (Par 0018).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,3-10, 12-22 under 102, 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Duhme.
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
03/31/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836