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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/22/2026, in which claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-26 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, 19-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0382256 A1, in view of Lindemann et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0117204 A1 (hereinafter Lindemann), and further in view of Quint et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0406131 A1 (hereinafter Quint).
Regarding claim 1, Tuukkanen discloses a method (Tuukkanen Fig. 4) comprising:
determining, by a vehicle power guiding apparatus comprising a processor (see at least Tuukkanen [0135]: “A processor 1002 performs a set of operations on information as specified by computer program code related to providing a charging time window for an electric vehicle based on environmental conditions at a charge point.”),
a current state of a vehicle (see at least Tuukkanen [0097]: “For instance, the battery charge report includes bullet points of user's frequent use of fast charging, frequent charging, too much electric power consumption while driving (e.g., high speed, uneven acceleration, loud music, strong AC, etc.), long term parking with a high state of charge, etc.”);
identifying, by the vehicle power guiding apparatus, electric power of the vehicle currently in use based on the current state of the vehicle (see at least Tuukkanen [0046]: “In one embodiment, the electric vehicle 101 can also report the current battery status (e.g., charged %), current environment conditions (e.g., weather, indoor location, roofed location, outdoor location, sun exposure, wind chill, etc. at the charge point 103) as well as a battery temperature profile/function that predicts the battery temperature depending on the environmental conditions.”),
wherein the current state of the vehicle includes at least one of a parked state, a stopped state, or a driving state (see at least Tuukkanen [0097]: “For instance, the battery charge report includes bullet points of user's frequent use of fast charging, frequent charging, too much electric power consumption while driving (e.g., high speed, uneven acceleration, loud music, strong AC, etc.), long term parking with a high state of charge, etc.”);
informing, by the vehicle power guiding apparatus, a user of an identified electric power of the vehicle currently in use (see at least Tuukkanen [0097]: “When the user select the option 853 of “Battery charge report?,” the system can generate a battery charge report for the electric vehicle 101 on demand. FIG. 8E is a user interface diagram that represents a subsequent window of the user interface of FIG. 8D, according to example embodiment(s). In this case, a UI 861 displays in a pane 863 includes a battery charge report and recommendations.”; [0046]: “In one embodiment, the electric vehicle 101 can also report the current battery status (e.g., charged %), current environment conditions (e.g., weather, indoor location, roofed location, outdoor location, sun exposure, wind chill, etc. at the charge point 103) as well as a battery temperature profile/function that predicts the battery temperature depending on the environmental conditions.”);
determining whether an electric power of the vehicle is insufficient (see at least Tuukkanen [0090]: “In one embodiment, the “power low” status can be deliberately planned by the system 100 for the user's trip of multiple stops (e.g., visiting customers, sight-seeing, etc.), and the charge point 811 and/or the charging time window were predetermined along with other charge point(s) and/or other charging time window(s) en route.”);
informing the user of an insufficiency of the electric power of the vehicle (see at least Tuukkanen [0089]: “In this case, the system 100 can automatically work in the background and detect the status of the vehicle battery, and have the UI 801 display a user prompt 807 of “Power low. Recommend a charge point and a charge time window?””);
and informing the user of an optimal charging method including at least one of (see at least Tuukkanen [0033]: “The system 100 can then make recommendations of the best time window and/or a respective charge point to electric vehicles and/or users regarding vehicle charging optimization, environmental impacts, and/or costs.”; examiner notes only one limitation is required to be taught in the list of limitations for “informing the user of an optimal charging method”):
moving to a charging station according to a first implementation (see at least Tuukkanen [0070]: “For instance, the charge point module 305 can guide the electric vehicle 101 to a charge point ready to be used, avoiding waiting for cooling down the battery pack (e.g., to avoid a charge point uphill that will heat up the battery pack even more).”),
Tuukkanen fails to expressly disclose wherein informing the user of the optimal charging method further comprises informing the user of the optimal charging method based on whether an occupant is in the vehicle, whether the charging station is near the vehicle, whether the vehicle is drivable to the charging station, whether the V2L vehicle is near the vehicle, and of a minimum amount of power. However, Lindemann teaches
controlling, by the vehicle power guiding apparatus, Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) power based on the identified electric power and the current state of the vehicle (see at least Lindemann [0011]: “Based on this estimated energy expenditure, the resident vehicle controller generates an action plan with vehicle maneuvering and/or accessory usage actions designed to increase the estimated driving range.”; [0040]: “As another example, the method 100 may rank different types of accessory usage by occupants of the vehicle in a manner that maximizes occupant comfort while minimizing energy use. If the vehicle 10 of FIG. 1 is operated in Arizona on a hot July afternoon or in Michigan on a cold January night, for example, the method 100 may prioritize heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) usage to maintain a comfortable cabin temperature while contemporaneously eliminating all “non-essential” infotainment and stereo use.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a load includes a vehicle air conditioner, as evidenced by instant application [0031]; examiner notes this limitation is not required to be taught because Tuukkanen teaches the “moving to a charging station…” limitation);
requesting an on-call charging vehicle according to a second implementation (see at least Lindemann [0048]: “At process block 147, a deploy request may be transmitted to a selected mobile charging vehicle to commence on-demand charging”; examiner notes this limitation is not required to be taught because Tuukkanen teaches the “moving to a charging station…” limitation),
calling a V2L vehicle according to a third implementation (see at least Lindemann [0008]: “On-demand charge delivery, e.g., via vehicle-to-vehicle or roadside assistance charging, may be employed to conveniently and quickly return a host vehicle to a baseline driving range.”; the mobile charging vehicle is a V2L vehicle because charging is completed vehicle-to-vehicle; examiner notes this limitation is not required to be taught because Tuukkanen teaches the “moving to a charging station…” limitation),
cutting off V2L power consumption according to a fourth implementation (see at least Lindemann [0040]: “As another example, the method 100 may rank different types of accessory usage by occupants of the vehicle in a manner that maximizes occupant comfort while minimizing energy use. If the vehicle 10 of FIG. 1 is operated in Arizona on a hot July afternoon or in Michigan on a cold January night, for example, the method 100 may prioritize heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) usage to maintain a comfortable cabin temperature while contemporaneously eliminating all “non-essential” infotainment and stereo use.”; examiner notes this limitation is not required to be taught because Tuukkanen teaches the “moving to a charging station…” limitation),
and limiting V2L power consumption according to a fifth implementation (see at least Lindemann [0040]: “As another example, the method 100 may rank different types of accessory usage by occupants of the vehicle in a manner that maximizes occupant comfort while minimizing energy use. If the vehicle 10 of FIG. 1 is operated in Arizona on a hot July afternoon or in Michigan on a cold January night, for example, the method 100 may prioritize heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) usage to maintain a comfortable cabin temperature while contemporaneously eliminating all “non-essential” infotainment and stereo use.”; examiner notes this limitation is not required to be taught because Tuukkanen teaches the “moving to a charging station…” limitation),
wherein informing the user of the optimal charging method comprises informing the user of the optimal charging method based on whether an occupant is in the vehicle (see at least Lindemann [0040]: “As another example, the method 100 may rank different types of accessory usage by occupants of the vehicle in a manner that maximizes occupant comfort while minimizing energy use.”; [0047]: “For at least some implementations, selection of an optimal recharging/refueling source may be carried out by the CPU 36/processors 40 of vehicle 10. Alternatively, the various available options may be presented to the driver via electronic video display device 18; the driver may then select one of the available options through the assorted input controls 32 of FIG. 1.”),
whether the charging station is near the vehicle (see at least Lindemann [0043]: “In a similar manner, the CPU 36 and/or processors 40 may also provide to the occupant an option to: (1) refuel/recharge the vehicle 10 at a nearby fill/charge station, or (2) deploy an on-demand mobile vehicle that delivers traction battery pack recharging services. Method 100 thereafter continues to the process blocks presented in FIG. 4 to determine whether or not to issue a deploy request to a mobile charging vehicle or to provide the driver with instructions for reaching a nearby charging/fuel station.”),
whether the vehicle is drivable to the charging station (see at least Lindemann [0048]: “At process block 147, a deploy request may be transmitted to a selected mobile charging vehicle to commence on-demand charging; alternatively, a modified route may be displayed to the user with a corresponding set of turn-by-turn directions to reach a selected refueling/recharging station.”; [0053]: “At this juncture, the system may be able to provide mobile charging solutions for drivers who are unable to reach a charge station and/or are unable to reach a next likely destination.”),
whether the V2L vehicle is near the vehicle (see at least Lindemann [0046]: “This operation may merely involve accessing a list of available nearby charging sources stored in resident memory device(s) 38 of FIG. 1, and identifying a subset of these options that is within a user-selected or default-mandated proximity of the vehicle's origin or candidate route…In an on-demand mobile vehicle recharging operation, for example, the method 100 may access location and dynamics information directly from the host vehicle and the refueling/recharging vehicle, and thereafter run a recursive estimate of the current and projected locations of both vehicles. From this information, the method 100 may then derive an optimized (fastest and most convenient) meeting location for the two vehicles.”; [0053]: “If there are not any convenient/accessible locations for carrying out a refueling/recharging operation (block 213=NO), the method 200 proceeds to operation 215 to carry out a proximity charge, e.g., where the host vehicle meets a mobile charging vehicle along the route.”),
and of a minimum amount of power (see at least Lindemann [0041]: “A route-based energy calculation utilizes the set of energy characteristics that is selected for the designated candidate route at process block 115 and subsequently evaluated at predefined process block 117 to derive a total vehicle energy expenditure to traverse the candidate route from origin to destination under real-time operating and environmental conditions.”; [0037]: “Situations in which a driver wishes to reach a specific destination without having the necessary vehicle power reserves to make that destination may warrant reevaluating the available candidate routes to identify which option requires the least amount of energy—is the “greenest”—thus making it feasible to reach the destination with the existing stored power.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Tuukkanen with the optimal charging method taught by Lindemann with reasonable expectation of success. Lindemann is directed towards the related field of on-demand mobile charging of vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Tuukkanen with Lindemann to ensure a user safely reaches a selected destination despite a low state of charge (see at least Lindemann [0007]: “Using real-time and forward-looking data, such as roadway map, terrain, weather, speed limit, etc., the vehicle coaches the driver with energy-use optimized instructions for vehicle operation and accessory usage to help ensure the vehicle safely achieves a user-selected destination in low range/state of charge (SOC) situations.”).
Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann fail to expressly disclose informing the user of the optimal charging method includes informing the user to cut off the V2L power consumption when the vehicle is unable to drive to the charging station, when the V2L vehicle cannot be called, and when no minimum amount of power remains. However, Quint teaches
and wherein informing the user of the optimal charging method includes informing the user to cut off the V2L power consumption when the vehicle is unable to drive to the charging station, when the V2L vehicle cannot be called, and when no minimum amount of power remains (see at least Quint [0061]: “At 526, processing circuitry 102 allocates charge from electric vehicle 101 to the accessory device based on the current SOC of the vehicle, the energy requirements of the vehicle, the current SOC of the accessory device, and the energy requirements of the accessory device. For example, processing circuitry 102 determines how much charge can be allocated to the accessory device, without depleting the vehicle battery beyond a level required to reach the charging station.”; [0055]: “In response to determining that the current SOC of electric vehicle 101 is not greater than the low charge threshold, processing may end. That is, processing circuitry 102 may determine to not allocate any charge to the connected accessory device until electric vehicle 101 is recharged.”; [0044]: “In some embodiments, navigation interface 400 may also display prompt 428 to allow the user to stop charging of the connected E-bike.”; [0012]: “In response to a determination that a charging waypoint is not available along the route, the processing circuitry may be further configured to allocate zero charge to the accessory device.”; Quint [0027] teaches charging can be performed by a portable charger, such as through another vehicle (i.e., V2L vehicle); therefore, Quint teaches the above limitation because Quint teaches preventing the charging of an accessory device when the vehicle charge is below a low charge threshold and no charging is available, and avoiding depleting the vehicle battery based on the energy requirements needed to complete charging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann with Quint with reasonable expectation of success. Quint is directed towards the related field of allocating charge from an electric vehicle to a connected accessory device. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann with Quint to reduce user difficulty and anxiety in determining charge allocation for accessory devices, while also increasing time efficiency (see at least Quint [0001]-[0002]: “Accordingly, during a trip, it may be difficult for a user of the electric vehicle (e.g., a driver) to determine if accessory devices are able to be charged by the electric vehicle, while still leaving enough charge for the electric vehicle to reach the next vehicle charger. In one approach, to reduce range anxiety before reaching a vehicle charger, the user may choose not to charge any electric devices until reaching the vehicle charger to recharge the electric vehicle. However, in such an approach, the user may not stop at a nearby point of interest if the accessory devices the user intends to use are not charged. For example, if the user passes a bike trail (e.g., bicycle trail) along a route to a charger, but the user's electronic bike (E-bike) is not charged, the user may continue past the bike trail to the charger to charge the electric vehicle and the E-bike. Thus, the user will be required to spend additional time driving back to the bike trail, as well as additional time charging both the electric vehicle and the E-bike. Consequently, what are needed are techniques to automatically allocate charge to connected accessory devices based on a current state of charge (SOC) of the vehicle battery and energy requirements of the electric vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 3, Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Lindemann further teaches
wherein determining whether the electric power of the vehicle is insufficient comprises comparing an amount of remaining power with the minimum amount of power to determine whether the electric power of the vehicle is insufficient (see at least Lindemann [0036]: “Upon determining that the current estimated driving range is not larger than the overall distance of the candidate route and, thus, there is an insufficient amount of stored energy to reach the desired destination (block 105=NO), the method 100 proceeds to decision block 109…”; [0011]: “The vehicle controller then calculates an estimated driving range for the motor vehicle based on a current state of charge of the rechargeable traction battery pack. If this estimated driving range is less than the total distance of the candidate route, the controller responsively evaluates energy characteristics of the candidate route to determine an estimated energy expenditure to reach the vehicle destination using this route.”).
Regarding claim 6, Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Lindemann further teaches
wherein the amount of the V2L power consumption is classified according to a mode selected by the user (see at least Lindemann [0044]: “At any point along the selected candidate route, for example, the telematics unit 14, display device 18, and/or audio system 22 provide performance feedback to the vehicle's occupants regarding expected energy usage data on several user-controllable elements. Such information may include real-time power consumption for drive power, HVAC power, speed, and/or any other user-controlled driving maneuver or accessory use. Through this protocol, the method 100 may evaluate real-time energy use and provide continual or continuous feedback that allows the vehicle users to modify their behavior for power-use optimization. By way of non-limiting example, the action plan may provide a restrictive set of actions at the beginning of a candidate route in an attempt to ensure arrival at the destination. If the user exceeds these power-use targets, the system can adapt the action plan and incorporate further restrictions for the final duration of the trip. Conversely, if the user meets the preset power-use targets, the system may adapt the action plan to reduce restrictions for the final duration of the trip.”),
Quint further teaches
wherein identifying the electric power comprises: when the vehicle is in the parked state or the stopped state, identifying at least one of an amount of the V2L power consumption, an amount of remaining power, or the minimum amount of power (see at least Quint [0059]: “At 522, processing circuitry 102 determines energy requirements of electric vehicle 101 along the determined route to the vehicle destination. For example, as described above with reference to FIG. 4 , processing circuitry 102 may retrieve route information from one or more servers 140 to estimate the energy required to travel along the route, based on vehicle information, driving habits, and any other suitable information. In some embodiments, processing circuitry 102 may also determine energy requirements of electric vehicle 101 when electric vehicle 101 is stopped at the point of interest.”; Quint teaches at least identifying a minimum amount of power in the stopped state),
and wherein the minimum amount of power is an amount of power for the vehicle to move from a current location of the vehicle to a nearest charging station (see at least Quint [0028]: “The determined location may be in any suitable form such as a geographic coordinate, a street address, a nearby landmark such as an identification of the nearest charging station or a tagged location associated with the vehicle (e.g., a location of a home of the user stored in memory 106).”; [0042]: “Although the term “energy requirements” is used herein, it should be understood that “energy requirements” may refer to a single requirement (e.g., the energy required to reach a destination) or multiple energy requirements.”).
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a vehicle power guiding apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint also disclose a vehicle power guiding apparatus that performs the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Tuukkanen discloses a memory and a processor (Tuukkanen [0004]) that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 3 as explained above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 6 as explained above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint teach all elements of the apparatus according to claim 10 as explained above. Tuukkanen further teaches
wherein the processor is configured to display the identified electric power of the vehicle on a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (see at least Tuukkanen [0097]: “When the user select the option 853 of “Battery charge report?,” the system can generate a battery charge report for the electric vehicle 101 on demand. FIG. 8E is a user interface diagram that represents a subsequent window of the user interface of FIG. 8D, according to example embodiment(s). In this case, a UI 861 displays in a pane 863 includes a battery charge report and recommendations.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation identified electric power includes a battery charge report).
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 19 as explained above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites a vehicle power guiding apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint also disclose a vehicle power guiding apparatus that performs the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Tuukkanen discloses a memory and a processor (Tuukkanen [0004]) that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 3 as explained above. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 25, this claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 19 as explained above. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 19.
Regarding claim 26, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 6 as explained above. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint, and further in view of Lee et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0295399 A1 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 7, Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Lindemann further teaches
when the vehicle is in the driving state, identifying at least one of an amount of the V2L power consumption, an amount of remaining power, an amount of spare power, or the minimum amount of power (see at least Lindemann [0036]: “Upon determining that the current estimated driving range is not larger than the overall distance of the candidate route and, thus, there is an insufficient amount of stored energy to reach the desired destination (block 105=NO), the method 100 proceeds to decision block 109…”; [0011]: “The vehicle controller then calculates an estimated driving range for the motor vehicle based on a current state of charge of the rechargeable traction battery pack. If this estimated driving range is less than the total distance of the candidate route, the controller responsively evaluates energy characteristics of the candidate route to determine an estimated energy expenditure to reach the vehicle destination using this route. Based on this estimated energy expenditure, the resident vehicle controller generates an action plan with vehicle maneuvering and/or accessory usage actions designed to increase the estimated driving range. Once generated, the controller transmits a command signal to a resident vehicle subsystem to execute a control operation based on the action plan.”; Lindemann teaches at least an amount of remaining power and a minimum amount of power)
Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint fail to expressly disclose the amount of power consumption for V2L is classified according to an electronic product in use by the user. However, Lee teaches
and wherein the amount of the V2L power consumption is classified according to an electronic product in use by the user (see at least Lee [0058]: “The processor 1300 may calculate the second estimated battery consumption based on a type of the other vehicular electronic devices 400 used by a driver, a front seat passenger, and/or a rear seat passenger and power consumption thereof according to usage time. The storage 1200 may store usage history information regarding a type and usage time of the other vehicular electronic devices 400 frequently used by the driver, the front passenger seat, and/or the rear seat passenger.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint with the identification taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of success. Lee is directed towards the related field of operating an electronic device mounted on a battery powered electric vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint with Lee to stably maintain a remaining battery capacity while performing travel to a target destination (see at least Lee [0006]: “Provided are an electronic device and an operation method thereof, which allow an electric vehicle to stably maintain a remaining battery capacity at or above an appropriate level even while communicating in a relatively high battery power consumption RF communication mode, e.g., a 5G mmWave communication mode, when travelling to a destination. Also provided are an electronic device and an operation method thereof, which determine whether to switch from a relatively high battery power consumption RF communication mode to a lower power consumption communication mode based on estimated battery consumption for the vehicle to travel to a target destination and a current remaining battery capacity.”).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 7 as explained above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 8, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint, and further in view of Sukhatankar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0105793 A1 (hereinafter Sukhatankar).
Regarding claim 8, Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint fail to expressly disclose recommending an amount of power for each mode when the vehicle is parked or stopped. However, Sukhatankar teaches wherein informing the user of the identified electric power consumption of the vehicle comprises:
when the vehicle is in the parked state or the stopped state, recommending an amount of power for each mode selected by the user (see at least Sukhatankar [0542]: “Example and non-limiting operations of the HVAC implementation circuit include one or more of the following…selecting a power load that will not be supported and/or that will be only partially supported during a stop time; selecting higher priority loads (e.g., favoring a CPAP power consumption over an auxiliary outlet power consumption; a microwave load over a TV load, or vice versa) for increased or full support over a lower priority load; providing a user selection menu to the user interface when all loads will not be supportable over the entire stop time (e.g., allowing the user, through the operator interface parameters, to pick a different cab temperature, cab comfort index, or the like; relax a noise constraint; and/or provide a load priority description through); providing a recommendation to the operator to the user of a change to be made when all loads will not be supportable over the entire stop time; and/or providing a notification to the operator of a change to be made when all loads will not be supportable over the entire stop time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint with the recommendation taught by Sukhatankar with reasonable expectation of success. Sukhatankar is directed towards the related field of electrical power systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint with Sukhatankar to improve energy efficiency (see at least Sukhatankar [0013]: “Certain features herein promote efficient utilization of system energy, such as the amount of energy utilized by the mobile application that is converted into mission capable work. Such features reduce a carbon footprint of the system, allow for greater capability with a reduced battery pack size, reduced motor/generator size, and/or reduced system voltage and/or current ratings, while maintaining or improving system capability to deliver power where desired.”).
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 8 as explained above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 8 as explained above. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 9, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint, and further in view of Hendrickson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0181897 A1 (hereinafter Hendrickson).
Regarding claim 9, Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint fail to expressly disclose recommending an amount of power for each electronic product when the vehicle is driving. However, Hendrickson teaches wherein informing the user of the identified electric power of the vehicle comprises:
when the vehicle is in the driving state, recommending an amount of power for each electronic product utilized by the user (see at least Hendrickson [0031]: “If the computing platform 150 determines the driving range is insufficient for the vehicle 112 to reach the one or more fueling stations, the process proceeds from operation 314 to operation 316, and the computing platform 150 outputs recommendations to the user and disables one or more power outlets 133 and/or vehicle features in the form of the low-voltage load 131 and/or electric load 132. The computing platform 150 may calculate an increased driving range by disabling certain items or features of the vehicle 112 and provide the recommendation based on the calculation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint with the recommendation taught by Hendrickson with reasonable expectation of success. Hendrickson is directed towards the related field of managing power outlets and estimating vehicle range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Tuukkanen in view of Lindemann and Quint with Hendrickson to save energy when the vehicle has insufficient energy to reach a fueling location (see at least Hendrickson [0031]: “For instance, if the vehicle 112 has insufficient driving range to reach the fueling location under the current prediction, but would have sufficient driving range if the user refrains from using the electric stove to cook a meal, the vehicle 112 may provide the recommendation to ask the user to skip the cooking to save energy.”).
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 9 as explained above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 24, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 9 as explained above. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 9.
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 ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights