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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on August 6, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 overcome the previous 101 rejection. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues paragraphs [0025], [0053], and [0066] of Lee are silent on, wherein at least one charging parameter comprises a type of charge and a length of charging time, as claimed.
Lee et al. (US 2017/0246961) teaches a logic that when executed is operable to cause one or more processors (302) (Fig.3) to perform operations comprising controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based on a target charging time (Par.25, 40 and 66; Control power delivered based on the received charging requirements and associated charging time.), wherein the at least one charging parameter comprises a type of charge (Par.40 and 66; Charging level) and a length of charging time (Par.24-25 and 53).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1; Line 9; Claim 8, Line 8; and Claim 15, Line 5 recite the limitation “based the target charging time”.
The limitation of Claim 1; Line 9; Claim 8, Line 8; and Claim 15, Line 5 should recite: based on the target charging time.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR. et al. (US 2024/0190289) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0246961).
Claims 1 and 8: Bove. JR. teaches a system (100) (Fig.1) comprising:
one or more processors (216) (Par.42) (Fig.2); and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media with program instructions stored thereon, the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors (216) (Par.42) and when executed operable to cause the one or more processors (216) to perform operations comprising:
computing a target charging time to charge a battery (116) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (110) (Par49);
computing a total play length of one or more media items (Par.50);
synchronizing the target charging time with the total play length (Par.50); and
playing the one or more media items in the electric vehicle (110) while the battery (116) of the electric vehicle (110) is being charged (Par.51).
Bove, JR does not explicitly teach controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based on the target charging time and the total play length, wherein the at least one charging parameter comprises a type of charge and a length of charging time.
Lee teaches a logic that when executed is operable to cause one or more processors (302) (Fig.3) to perform operations comprising controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based on a target charging time (Par.25, 40 and 66), wherein the at least one charging parameter comprises a type of charge (Par.40 and 66; Charging level) and a length of charging time (Par.24-25 and 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lee in the system of Bove, JR. to have had optimized different performance criteria such as a maximum charging time (Par.67).
Claims 2 and 9: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR. teaches wherein the one or more media items are associated with one or more of movie media items and interactive gaming media items (Par.52).
Claims 3 and 10: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the target charging time is substantially the same as the total play length (Par.52 and 54).
Claims 5 and 12: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the total play length is based on the target charging time (Par.50).
Claims 7 and 14: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors (216) to perform operations comprising playing the one or more media items in the electric vehicle (110) while the battery (116) of the electric vehicle (110) is being charged (Par.51) (Fig.1; Media being displayed in device 102a).
Bove, JR. does not explicitly teach while the electric vehicle is parked in an enclosed area.
Lee discloses a battery of an electric vehicle (118) is charged while parked in an enclosed area (Par.41; Parking garage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lee in the system of Bove, JR. to have had charged vehicles at different locations (Par.41) thereby increasing charger use and protecting the vehicle from the elements while charging.
Claim 15: Bove. JR. teaches a computer-implemented method (Fig.3) comprising:
computing a target charging time to charge a battery (116) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (110) (Par.49) (Fig.3, 302);
computing a total play length of one or more media items (Par.50);
synchronizing the target charging time with the total play length (Par.50) (Fig.3, 304); and
playing the one or more media items in the electric vehicle (110) while the battery (116) of the electric vehicle (110) is being charged (Par.51) (Fig.3, 306).
Bove, JR does not explicitly teach controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based on the target charging time and the total play length, wherein the at least one charging parameter comprises a type of charge and a length of charging time.
Lee teaches a logic that when executed is operable to cause one or more processors (302) (Fig.3) to perform operations comprising controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based on a target charging time (Par.25, 40 and 66), wherein the at least one charging parameter comprises a type of charge (Par.40 and 66; Charging level) and a length of charging time (Par.24-25 and 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lee in the system of Bove, JR. to have had optimized different performance criteria such as a maximum charging time (Par.67).
Claim 16: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the one or more media items are associated with one or more of movie media items and interactive gaming media items (Par.52).
Claim 17: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the target charging time is substantially the same as the total play length (Par.52 and 54).
Claim 19: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the total play length is based on the target charging time (Par.50).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR. et al. (US 2024/0190289) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0246961) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2022/0379765).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Bove, JR. in view of Lee teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR wherein the target charging time is based on the total play length.
Meyer teaches computing a target charging time to charge a battery of an electric vehicle based on a total play length of one or more media items (Par.7; First charge time based on a user watching a movie.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Meyer in the system of Bove, JR. to have had estimated the charging time to more efficiently provide services to electric vehicles and prevent unnecessary fast charging rates, resulting in prolonged lifespan of the vehicle’s battery (Par.7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 2018/0370379) teaches controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station (14) based on a target charging time (Par.40, 43-44, 48 and 57).
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 JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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 D 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
