DETAILED ACTION This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 6/1/2023 . Claims 1- 20 are pending for prosecution below. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) file on 6/1/2023 has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1 -13,16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Abrams, (USPATNO.11,766,948) . As for claim 1 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a method of controlling electric charging of at least two electrically powered machines, wherein the method is performed by a charging station comprising a plurality of electric energy sources (via ref’s electric charger) , a charging interface for electrically connecting with an electrically powered machine (ref’s electric vehicle) , and a control unit (ref’s central controller) , the method comprising: collecting data (ref’s arrival order or historical order data or vehicle) about each one of the at least two electrically powered machines; obtaining a status (via CpIndex and/or NumChrgLvls) of each one of the plurality of electric energy sources; and determining a charging strategy based on the collected data, the obtained status and on a pre-determined charging focus of the charging strategy, and subsequently charging the at least two electrically powered machines according to the determined charging strategy, wherein the pre-determined charging focus is optimization of a total productivity of the at least two electrically powered machines (col.3, lines 4- 32 ;col.9, line 53-col.1 1 ,line 55 ) . As for claim 2 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 determining the charging strategy comprises: selecting at least one electrically powered machine to charge; selecting at least one of the plurality of the electric energy sources; and setting a charging power for each one of the at least one selected electric energy sources to be used when charging the at least one electrically powered machine in view of the pre-determined charging focus of the charging strategy (col.3, lines 33-39) . As for claim 3 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 selecting at least one electrically powered machine, selecting at least one of the plurality of the electric energy sources and setting the charging power for each one of the at least one electric energy sources are based on the data collected about the at least one electrically powered machine and/or on the obtained status of each one of the plurality of energy sources As for claim 4 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 data collected about each one of the at least two electrically powered machines relates to at least one of a state of charge of an electric energy storage system of the at least one electrically powered machine, consumption rate of electric energy, geographic location, work schedule, and/or handling time, and wherein the status obtained of each one of the plurality of electric energy sources relates to at least one of a state of charge, a power capacity, a fuel level, a cost of electric energy and/or a CO2 emission factor of the electric energy available from the electric energy source (col.3,lines 33-39;col.7,lines 18-27) As for claim 5 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 pre-determined charging focus is based on at least one of: a lifetime (ref’s historical data) of at least one of the plurality of electric energy sources; a cost of electric energy; charging time; and CO2 emissions. As for claim 6 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 simultaneous charging of a plurality of electrically powered machines using an individually determined charging strategy for each one of the electrically powered machines As for claim 7 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a control unit configured to control electric charging of at least two electrically powered machines by: collecting data about each one of the at least two electrically powered machines (ref’s electric vehicle) ; obtaining a status of each one of a plurality of electric energy sources (via ref’s electric charger) ; and determining a charging strategy based on the collected data (ref’s arrival order or historical order data or vehicle) , the obtained status (via CpIndex and/or NumChrgLvls) and on a pre-determined charging focus of the charging strategy, and subsequently charging the at least two electrically powered machines according to the determined charging strategy, wherein the pre-determined charging focus is optimization of a total productivity of the at least two electrically powered machines (col.3, lines 4-32;col.9, line 53-col.11,line 55) . As for claim 8 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 determining the charging strategy comprises: selecting at least one electrically powered machine to charge; selecting at least one of the plurality of the electric energy sources; and setting a charging power for each one of the at least one selected electric energy sources to be used when charging the at least one electrically powered machine in view of the pre-determined charging focus of the charging strategy (col.3, lines 33-39) . As for claim 9 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 data collected about each one of the at least two electrically powered machines relates to at least one of a state of charge of an electric energy storage system of the at least one electrically powered machine, consumption rate of electric energy, geographic location, work schedule, and/or handling time, and wherein the status obtained of each one of the plurality of electric energy sources relates to at least one of a state of charge, a power capacity, a fuel level, a cost of electric energy and/or a CO2 emission factor of the electric energy available from the electric energy source (col.3,lines 33-39;col.7,lines 18-27) As for claim 10 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 the pre-determined charging focus is based on at least one of: a lifetime of at least one of the plurality of electric energy sources; a cost of electric energy; charging time; and CO2 emissions. As for claim 11 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 the control unit is further configured to control electric charging of the at least two electrically powered machines by simultaneous charging of a plurality of electrically powered machines using an individually determined charging strategy for each one of the electrically powered machines As for claim 12 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a plurality of electric energy sources, a charging interface for electrically connecting with an electrically powered machine, and the control unit according to claim 7 As for claim 13 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 plurality of electric energy sources comprises at least one of a power battery, an energy battery, a fuel cell, a genset and/or a grid connection As for claim 16 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code that when executed by the control unit of claim 8 causes the control unit to perform operations comprising. collecting data (ref’s arrival order or historical order data or vehicle) about each one of the at least two electrically powered machines (ref’s electric vehicle) ; obtaining a status (via CpIndex and/or NumChrgLvls) of each one of a plurality of electric energy sources; and determining a charging strategy based on the collected data, the obtained status and on a pre-determined charging focus of the charging strategy, and subsequently charging the at least two electrically powered machines according to the determined charging strategy, wherein the pre-determined charging focus is optimization of a total productivity of the at least two electrically powered machines (col.3, lines 4-32;col.9, line 53-col.11,line 55) As for claim 17 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 program code comprises program code to determining the charging strategy by: selecting at least one electrically powered machine to charge; selecting at least one of the plurality of the electric energy sources; and setting a charging power for each one of the at least one selected electric energy sources to be used when charging the at least one electrically powered machine in view of the pre-determined charging focus of the charging strategy (col.3, lines 33-39) As for claim 18 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 data collected about each one of the at least two electrically powered machines relates to at least one of a state of charge of an electric energy storage system of the at least one electrically powered machine, consumption rate of electric energy, geographic location, work schedule, and/or handling time, and wherein the status obtained of each one of the plurality of electric energy sources relates to at least one of a state of charge, a power capacity, a fuel level, a cost of electric energy and/or a CO2 emission factor of the electric energy available from the electric energy source (col.3,lines 33-39;col.7,lines 18-27) As for claim 19 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 pre-determined charging focus is based on at least one of: a lifetime of at least one of the plurality of electric energy sources; a cost of electric energy; charging time; and CO2 emissions. As for claim 20 , Abrams discloses and shows in Fig. 1 the program code further causes the control unit to control electric charging of the at least two electrically powered machines by simultaneous charging of a plurality of electrically powered machines using an individually determined charging strategy for each one of the electrically powered machines. 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. 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. 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. Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Jammer, (USNO.2012/0005031) . As for claims 14 and 15, Abrams discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose charging station is mobile and a vehicle or vessel comprising the charging station station Jammer discloses and shows in Fig. 1 charging station is mobile (ref’s master charger vehicle) and a vehicle or vessel comprising the charging station station (par.[0044-0058,0229-0231]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Jammer by using charging station is mobile and a vehicle or vessel comprising the charging station station for advantages such as providing the ability to recharge electric vehicles in transit (par.[0017]) , as taught by Jammer . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 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. /ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859