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 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. 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) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YEBKA et al. (US 2019/0305564 A1, hereinafter YEBKA) in view of TAKANO et al. (US 9,136,7 2 7 B2, hereinafter TAKANO) . Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YENKA discloses a charging management computing device for managing charging of an electric vehicle at a charging point, the charging management computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, and the at least one processor programmed to: instruct a charging point to charge an electric vehicle at a first charging power until a state of charge (SOC) of the electric vehicle reaches a threshold SOC, the threshold SOC being less than 100% (See Fig.5B, discloses charging a device 200, Par.53, discloses the electronic device 200 comprising an electric vehicle, the vehicle is charged at a first power until a state of charge 565 is reached. The charge level 565 is 98%) ; reduce a charging power delivered to the electric vehicle from the first charging power to a second charging power (See Fig.5B and Par.92, discloses that once the battery reaches a SOC 98%, the SOC is maintained at the 98% which is inherently done by reducing the charging power since continuing the charging at the same power level would continue to raise the SOC above the level 565) ; monitor the SOC of the electric vehicle (See Par.50, discloses monitoring the amount of time the SOC is at 100% which indicates monitoring the SOC) ; and maintain the SOC to be below 100% until a time point before a departure time of the electric vehicle from the charging point (See Par.92 and Fig.5B, discloses that the vehicle SOC is maintained at the level 565 until the point 575 at which the battery is permitted to be fully charged). However, YEBKA does not disclose maintaining the SOC below 100% is done by adjusting the charging power based on the SOC. TAKANO discloses a battery charging control device comprising maintaining a vehicle SOC below 100% by adjusting the charging power based on the SOC (See Fig.2, Steps#S15 and S16, Fig.4 and col.6, lines 42-60, disclose holding the battery SOC at a SOChold , including increasing the charging power during a period when power is provided to a vehicle heater to compensate for the lost power) . YEBKA and TAKANO are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle battery charging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by YEBKA with the teachings of TAKANO by maintaining the SOC of charge below 100% by adjusting the charging power based on the SOC for the benefit of compensating for battery loss such that the time to full charge remains a predetermined amount such that the vehicle battery is guarantee to be fully charged by the dispatch time. Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YEBKA and TAKANO disclose t he charging management computing device of claim 1 as discussed above , wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: increase the charging power to the first charging power at the time point (See YEBKA, Fig.5B, discloses increasing the charging power after point 575, the examiner explains that the power level being the first level during the initial charging up to 565 level is an obvious design choice for the benefit of simplifying the charging by varying between two power charging levels) . Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YEBKA and TAKANO disclose t he charging management computing device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive the departure time; and determine parameters of a charging session of the electric vehicle (See YEBKA, Par.92 and Fig.5B, Item#560, disclose receiving a time of use time from a use history and defining the charging to the intermediate level 565 and the charging point to full charge 575 accordingly) . Regarding claims 6 and 13 (claim 6 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YEBKA and TAKANO disclose t he charging management computing device of claim 1, wherein the threshold SOC is 9 8 % (See YEBKA, Par.92 and Fig.5B). However, YEBKA and TAKANO do not disclose the threshold SOC is 97%, however the examiner explains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by YEBKA and TAKANO by trying different threshold SOC lower than 100% for the benefit of reducing the battery deterioration. Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20 (claim 7 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YEBKA and TAKANO disclose t he charging management computing device of claim 1 as discussed above , wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: receive the threshold SOC from a user (See YEBKA, Par.57 and 82 and Figs.2, Item#215 and fields 375, 380 and 385, disclose an input device and intermediate charging fields). Claim (s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YEBKA in view of TAKANO and in further view of BITO (US 2013/0200845 A1, hereinafter BITO). Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18 (claim 4 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YEBKA and TAKANO disclose t he charging management computing device of claim 1, wherein: if the SOC decreases for a second period of time , the at least one processor is further programmed to adjust the charging power by: increasing the charging power (See TAKANO, Fig.2, Steps#S15 and S16, Fig.4 and col.6, lines 42-60, disclose holding the battery SOC at a SOChold , including increasing the charging power during a period when power is provided to a vehicle heater to compensate for the lost power ). However, YEBKA and TAKANO do not disclose if the SOC increases for a first period of time , the at least one processor is further programmed to adjust the charging power by: reducing the charging power . BITO discloses a charging and discharging control of a vehicle battery comprising if the SOC increases for a first period of time , the at least one processor is further programmed to adjust the charging power by: reducing the charging power (See Steps#S24 and S26, disclose when the vehicle battery SOC is above a target SOC, the battery is discharged. i.e. negative power) . YEBKA, TANAKO and BITO are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle battery charging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by YEBKA and TANAKO with the teachings of BITO by reducing the charging power when the SOC increases above the target intermediate level for the benefit of preventing battery deterioration by limiting the time the battery spends at full charging SOC by maintaining the battery at an intermediate SOC lower than the full SOC. Claim (s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YEBKA in view of TAKANO and in further view of RAJ et al. (US 2018/0205417 A1, hereinafter RAJ). Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17 (claim 3 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), YEBKA and TAKANO disclose t he charging management computing device of claim 1 as discussed above , However, YEBKA and TANAKO do not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: communicate instructions to the charging point at a frequency faster than a communication frequency between the electric vehicle and the charging point. RAJ discloses communication between a charger and a charge receiving device wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to: communicate instructions to the charging point at a frequency faster than a communication frequency between the electric vehicle and the charging point (See Par.25, discloses one transceiver 207 can be a low energy consuming device that uses a low data transmission rate communication protocol such as Bluetooth Low Energy for transferring commands and status information and another transceiver 208 can be a higher speed communication device using a higher capability transmission protocol such as the Gazelle or Shockwave protocol of Nordic Semiconductors ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify disclosed by YEBKA and TAKANO with the teachings of RAJ by communicat ing instructions to the charging point at a frequency faster than a communication frequency between the electric vehicle and the charging point. for the benefit of separati ng fast, high-level control of the charger-grid interaction from the slower, safety-critical communication between the car and the charger. Reference considered but not relied upon: Elidrissi et al. (US 2021/0281093 A1): discloses a dynamic management of charge. A method involves obtaining an estimated readiness time for an energy storage element, obtaining a target state of charge for the energy storage element, calculating an estimated charging time based at least in part on a difference between the target state of charge and a current state of charge, using a first charging rate to charge the energy storage element to an intermediate state of charge responsive to determining a time difference between the estimated readiness time and a first time is greater than the estimated charging time, maintaining the energy storage element at the intermediate state of charge, and responsive to determining a time difference between the estimated readiness time and a second time is less than the estimated charging time, using a second charging rate to charge the energy storage element to the target state of charge. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7165 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Drew Dunn can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2312 . 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. /AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859