DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023, 12/29/2023, 04/03/204, 07/01/2024, 12/19/2024, and 12/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 08/02/2023 in which claims 1-20 were canceled and claims 21-40 were added. Therefore, claims 21-40 are pending for examination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 25-30, 32-36, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hobbs [US 6,963,186] in view of Cohen [US 7,881,957].
With respect to claims 21, 28, and 35, Hobbs discloses a vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle and for communication with a first controller remote from the vehicle charger and the battery [Fig. 1], the vehicle charger comprising: a transmitter for communication with the first controller [col. 7 lines 30-40, i.e. PDA communicates via cellular telephony]; and a second controller configured to: supply power to the battery to charge the battery in a charging session [270], and transmit signals indicative of charge of the battery during battery charging upon detection of a predetermined threshold of charge [339]; and a user-manipulatable control [130] indicative of levels of charge. However, Hobbs fails to explicitly disclose the user configures how alerts are sent to the first controller.
Cohen relates to techniques for facilitating interactions between users and a system and teaches a user-manipulatable controller by which a user configures how alerts are sent in at least one of: a first mode of operation in which the controller sends an alert in a first manner, and a second mode of operation in which the controller sends the alert in a second manner different from the first manner [Fig 14A-C; see items 1416i, 1432b, 1452b which denotes a user option to select between different modes of sending information including via web, email, and/or sms].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person have ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Hobbs to include a user selection of the mode of information transmission for the benefit of allowing the user to personalize how they want to receive the notification based on their preferences.
With respect to claims 22 and 29, Hobbs further discloses wherein the alert is sent via a wireless signal [i.e. cellular telephony].
With respect to claims 23, 30, and 36, Hobbs further discloses wherein the predetermined threshold level of charge of the battery is a full charge of the battery [i.e. “charge complete”].
With respect to claims 25, 32, and 39, Cohen as applied above further discloses wherein the first manner includes at least one of a group consisting of a text and an e-mail [sms and email].
With respect to claims 26-27 and 33-34, Hobbs shows the user display is a touch-screen [i.e. shows various buttons for inputting by the user], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user-manipulatable control is in the vehicle and coupled to the second controller. However, re-arrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Including the user control in the vehicle would provide the benefit of allowing the user to control the charging operation from the safety of inside their vehicle without being exposed to the elements.
With respect to claim 40, Hobbs further discloses a receiver configured to receive a wireless command from the second controller in response to the alert, wherein the first controller is further configured to change the charging status of the battery in response to the wireless command [i.e. PDA 130 performs diagnosing and charging controlling].
Claims 24, 31, and 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hobbs [US 6,963,186] and Cohen [US 7,881,957] as applied above, and further in view Tsukamoto et al. [US 8,704,485].
With respect to claims 24, 31, and 37, Hobbs fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined threshold level of charge of the battery is less than a full charge of the battery. However, Tsukamoto relates to a battery pack with remote controller receiving and displaying an indication regarding an error [col. 13 lines 45-60; i.e. an error is equated to the battery being less than a full charge, i.e. the charging operation is not complete].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person have ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Hobbs to include a user indication that the battery is less than full charge for the benefit of enabling quacking notification to the user regarding the status of the battery not reaching a complete charge.
Claim 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hobbs [US 6,963,186] and Cohen [US 7,881,957] as applied above, and further in view Levine [US 4,769,796].
With respect to claim 38, Hobbs fails to disclose user selection of an audio or visual alert. However, such a method is well-known in the art. For example, Levine relates to a device to providing notifications to a user and teaches selecting from a group consisting of a visual alert and an audible alert [col. 5 lines 13-27].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person have ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Hobbs to include a user selection of the mode of information transmission for the benefit of allowing the user to personalize how they want to receive the notification based on their preferences.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,355,791. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are encompassed by the conflicting patent, i.e. the instant invention is simply worded in a slightly broader format but still includes the entire concept of the user selected modes of sending alerts. The dependent claims correspond in a one-to-one manner.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,721,845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are encompassed by the conflicting patent, i.e. the instant invention is simply worded in a slightly broader format but still includes the entire concept of the user selected modes of sending alerts. The dependent claims correspond in a one-to-one manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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 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.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights