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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102022000026838, filed on 12/27/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Application Status This office action is issued in response to application filed 12/21/2023. The preliminary amendments filed on 12/21/2023 have been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set. Drawings Figs. 5-6 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because of: Fig. 5 : Inconsistent labeling of the two batteries: Battery vs. Battery #2; and 200 vs. 200’ [Examiner: the specification refers to all batteries as 200]. Fig. 6 : The battery is labeled 3 not 200. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance . Specification Objections The specifications are objected to because of the following informalities: The words “ centre ”, “ recognise ” and “ recognised ” need to be changed to the US English language versions center, recognize and recognized, respectfully. The separation between paragraphs is not indicated by either indenting the start of each paragraph or separating each paragraph by an empty line, making it difficult to be certain where each paragraphs begins. For example, on Pg. 11, Ln. 16 , it appears to be the start of a new paragraph but it is unclear. The last sentence of the specifications on Pg. 12 refers to “examples of which are described in more detail below.”, but no additional details are provided. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-2 and 11 : The words “ recognising ” and “ recognised ” need to be changed to the US English language versions recognizing and recognized, respectfully. Claims 11-12 are objected to as depending from Claim 2 with multiple intervening claims (i.e., Claims 4-10). Claim 13 is objected to as depending from Claim 12. Claims 4-10 are objected to as being the aforementioned intervening claims. In summary, the ordering of Claims 4-13 is non-compliant. The examiner recommends canceling these claims and adding new with compliant ordering. Specifically, make sure that Claims 11-12 extend directly from Claim 2; and Claims 11-13 appear, in compliant ordering, before Claims 4-10. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is/are for the terms: Recognition means in Claims 1-3 and 5. Recognition module in Claim 2. Communication means in Claims 3, 4 and 7. Identification means in Claims 5-6. Control means in Claims 12-13. Power Supply module in Claim 11. Selection module in Claim 12 . Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For each of the above, the specifications state: Recognition means and Recognition module : “The recognition means preferably comprise a processing unit designed to receive a signal identifying the energy source. In this case, the processing unit comprises an recognition module designed to recognise the energy source on the basis of the signal received.” {Pg. 6, Lns . 21-24} Communication means : “The above-mentioned identification signal may be transmitted to the processing unit by communication means which connect it to the compartments, which may, for example, be of the CAN-bus type.” {Pg. 7, Lns . 11-13} Identification means : “These identification means may comprise a control device in which at least one parameter identifying the energy source is recorded. In this case, the battery 200 or the electricity generator apparatus 300 include an internal management logic connected to a relative connector 202, 302 by which they can send signals which identify the energy source and, optionally, also the serial number of the specific device which constitutes the energy source.” {Pg. 7, Lns . 18-23} Control means : “control means which can be used by an operator, designed for controlling the energy sources 200, 300 on board the vehicle 1. More in detail, the control means may form part of the commands in the cabin and include one or more displays. The control means are equipped with a plurality of management configurations, which are set by the control unit (or other processing unit), as a function of which energy sources 200, 300 are present in the compartments.” {Pg. 5, Ln. 30 – Pg. 6, Ln. 7} Power Supply module : “the telehandler 1 is provided with two alternative power supply configurations, which can be switched by the action of a user: - a fully electrical configuration wherein the power supply means include only one or more electric batteries 200; and - a hybrid configuration wherein the above-mentioned power supply means include the electricity generator apparatus 300.” {Pg. 3, Ln. 29 – Pg. 4, Ln. 4} and “the various modules can correspond to hardware units and/or software forming part of the programmed device.” {Pg. 7, Lns . 1-2} Selection module : “Each battery 200 has a management system (BMS, that is, "Battery Management System")…the processing unit which is therefore able to distinguish the battery 200 located in one compartment from that located in the other, for the purpose of their management. For example, thanks to this feature, the operator can select whether to power the motors 21, 22 and other user devices using the battery located in the compartment on the right relative to the direction of advance the telehandler 1 or that located in the compartment on the left or both.” {Pg. 11 , Lns . 16-28 } and “the various modules can correspond to hardware units and/or software forming part of the programmed device.” {Pg. 7, Lns . 1-2} If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) : (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The objection, discussed supra , notes different numbers assigned to a battery or batteries (3, 200, 200’). Whereas the claim limitations include only a single number: “ at least one electric battery (200) …a battery (200)”. As a result it is unclear whether a second battery, for example , is also identified as 200. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 5, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio et al. (US 2022/0098017 A1, henceforth Di Florio ). Regarding Claim 1 , Di Florio discloses the limitations: a telehandler {Figs. 1-3} equipped with at least one electric motor { M1, M2, Fig. 4 , and ¶[0135] } and several seats for housing energy sources on board the telehandler {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7 , and for generator 40 in Fig. 12 } ; wherein at least one electric battery is provided for powering said motor {battery 20 connected to motors M1, M2 in Fig. 4 } designed to be housed in at least one of the seats {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7 } ; and wherein at least one electricity generator apparatus is provided designed to be housed in at least one of the seats {“The support 100 includes a positioning structure 101 for the power generator 40 in the location 39.”, ¶[0165] and Figs. 9&12 } ; the telehandler comprising recognition means configured for automatically recognising whether a battery or an electricity generator apparatus is present in a seat {“The on-board electronics 70 may also be provided to identify the type of power generator 40 if mounted on the aerial work platform, in the case it is intended to be operable with different models of power generators”, ¶[0138] } . Regarding Claim 2 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said recognition means comprise a processing unit { “on-board electronics 70 comprising, for example, a computer”, ¶[0136]} designed for receiving a signal identifying the energy source and comprising a recognition module designed for recognising the energy source on the basis of the signal received {“The on-board electronics 70 may also be provided to identify the type of power generator 40 if mounted on the aerial work platform, in the case it is intended to be operable with different models of power generators”, ¶[0138] } . Regarding Claim 5 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each energy source includes identification means designed for operating in conjunction with said recognition means for allowing recognition of whether there is a battery or an electricity generator apparatus in the seat {“The on-board electronics 70 may also be provided to identify the type of power generator 40 if mounted on the aerial work platform, in the case it is intended to be operable with different models of power generators”, ¶[0138] } . Regarding Claim 11 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: comprising an electrical system which connects the seats and the electric motor to each other {electrical connection of battery 20 and generator 40 to motors M1, M2 in Fig. 4 , is indicative of the electrical connection between the compartment for battery 20 ( Fig. 7 ) and for generator 40 ( Fig. 12 , with motors M1, M2} , wherein said processing unit {70, Fig. 4 } comprises a power supply module {“The aerial work platform comprises at least a first single-phase charger 31 for recharging the battery 20 via a battery management circuit 21 ”, ¶[0120] and Fig. 4 } configured for allowing by means of the system current to be supplied to a battery from a source housed in a seat when it is recognised to be an electricity generator apparatus {as evident in Fig. 7 , on-board electronics 70 controls identification ( ¶[0138] ) and operation of generator 40, for both recharging battery 20 and directly powering motors M1, M2} . Regarding Claim 12 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: comprising control means which can be used by an operator and equipped with a plurality of management configurations {with regard to Fig. 4 , the power supply system includes numerous switches, including three (86, 87 & 90) associated with directing power to-or-from battery 20 and from generator 40} , wherein said processing unit comprises a selection module configured for switching the management configuration of the control means as a function of which energy sources are housed in the seats {“The on-board electronics 70 may also be provided to identify the type of power generator 40 if mounted on the aerial work platform, in the case it is intended to be operable with different models of power generators”, ¶[0138] } . Regarding Claim 14 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each seat is defined by a containment compartment for housing an energy source {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7 , and for generator 40 in Fig. 12 } . Regarding Claim 15 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: comprising a carriage movable on wheels { mobile, scissor-type aerial work platform in Figs. 1-3 } , wherein the compartments are made in said carriage, with the access opening positioned on a side of the carriage {a compartment for batteries 20 is evident in Fig. 7 , and for generator 40 in Fig. 12 } . 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 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio et al. (US 2022/0098017 A1, henceforth Di Florio ) and Guillermin et al. (US 2024/0317558 A1, henceforth Guillermin ). Regarding Claim 3 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra . Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the recognition means comprise communication means which connect the seats with the processing unit, which are designed for transmitting said identification signal. However, Guillermin explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the recognition means comprise communication means {“The identification system may comprise a data communication device adapted to establish a data communication link with any one of the plurality of second self-contained electrical power sources when received in the second location, the onboard electronics being provided to cooperate with the data communication device so as to obtain from the second self-contained electrical power source identification data thereof.”, ¶[0023] } which connect the seats {“it is advantageous to provide the second self-contained electrical power sources 15 with a locking system which locks them automatically in the second location 8 and which is actuated by at least one of the fork teeth for unlocking.”, ¶[0063] } with the processing unit, which are designed for transmitting said identification signal {with regard to Fig. 3 , differing energy sources 15a-15e are connected by wires to onboard electronics 70 of power circuit 30} and comprising a recognition module designed for recognising the energy source on the basis of the signal received {“The lifting machine further comprises an identification system provided to identify which of the plurality of second self-contained electrical power sources is received in the second location”, ¶[0008] ; see also ¶[0066] , the onboard electronics 70 is capable of recognizing the type of energy source connected in order to apply the appropriate load curve and other characteristics of the energy source} . Di Florio and Guillermin are analogous art because they both deal with supply power to telehandler type vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Di Florio and Guillermin before them, to modify the teachings of Di Florio to include the teachings of Guillermin allow multiple energy source to be swapped in-and-out as needed {“the second self-contained electrical power source 15 is selectable from a plurality of different self-contained electrical power sources, each of them being provided to be received in the second location 8. In particular, these may be, without being limited thereto, the following sources: a generating set, a fuel cell, preferably a hydrogen fuel cell, a second pack of rechargeable electric batteries, a solar energy panel.” , ¶[0056]} . Regarding Claim 4 , the combination of Di Florio and Guillermin discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra . In addition, Di Florio explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said communication means are of the CAN-bus type { “The communication link between the control electronics 70 and these components, or at least the remote ones, may be via a bus such as a CAN data bus conforming to ISO 11898”, ¶[0136]} . Regarding Claim 6 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as discussed supra . Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein said identification means comprise a control device in which an identification parameter of the energy source is recorded. However, Guillermin explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said identification means comprise a control device in which an identification parameter of the energy source is recorded {“the second self-contained electrical power sources 15 may be subjected to specific management by the onboard electronics 40 such as, for example, the application of a specific load curve to load the battery pack 20 , the adaptation of the characteristics of the electrical power that they supply or also the control of functions specific to some of them, such as the start-up and shut-down of the generating set 15a, or even other functions… The onboard electronics 40 contains in memory the management rules specific to each of the second self-contained electrical power sources 15 .”, ¶[0086] } . Regarding Claim 7 , the combination of Di Florio and Guillermin discloses all the limitations of Claim 6, as discussed supra . Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the recognition means comprise communication means which connect the seats with the processing unit, which are designed for transmitting said identification signal, and wherein said control device is designed for connecting with said communication means for sending to the processing unit an identification signal as a function of said identification parameter. However, Guillermin explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the recognition means comprise communication means {“The identification system may comprise a data communication device adapted to establish a data communication link with any one of the plurality of second self-contained electrical power sources when received in the second location, the onboard electronics being provided to cooperate with the data communication device so as to obtain from the second self-contained electrical power source identification data thereof.”, ¶[0023] } which connect the seats with the processing unit, which are designed for transmitting said identification signal {with regard to Fig. 3 , differing energy sources 15a-15e are connected by wires to onboard electronics 70 of power circuit 30} , and wherein said control device is designed for connecting with said communication means for sending to the processing unit an identification signal as a function of said identification parameter {“the second self-contained electrical power sources 15 may be subjected to specific management by the onboard electronics 40 such as, for example, the application of a specific load curve to load the battery pack 20 , the adaptation of the characteristics of the electrical power that they supply or also the control of functions specific to some of them, such as the start-up and shut-down of the generating set 15a, or even other functions… The onboard electronics 40 contains in memory the management rules specific to each of the second self-contained electrical power sources 15 .”, ¶[0086] } . Regarding Claim 8 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra . Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein each seat is associated with at least one identification sensor designed for detecting the type of source housed and for producing an identification signal as a function of the detection performed . However, Guillermin explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each seat is associated with at least one identification sensor designed for detecting the type of source housed and for producing an identification signal as a function of the detection performed {production of an identification signal: “the identification system may be of optical or inductive nature with sensors provided at the location 8 to cooperate with coding tabs arranged on the housing of each second self-contained source electrical power 15 and which identify the latter”, ¶[0090] ; see also ¶[0023] ; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the identification approach described in is comparable to using an identification sensor, and the approach applies to any number of power source seats} . Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio , Guillermin and Kokubu et al. ( US 6,177,879 B1 , henceforth Kokubu ). Regarding Claim 9 , the combination of Di Florio and Guillermin discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra . The combination of Di Florio and Guillermin does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein said sensor is a microswitch. However, Kokubu explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said sensor is a microswitch {“In the battery supply device 42, as shown in FIG. 6, a plurality of receptacles 100 for accommodating a plurality of batteries 18 constructed as described above are disposed within a main body 98 (see FIG. 3). Electrodes 104 which connect to a charging circuit 102 are disposed at the bottom of each receptacle 100, together with a sensor 106, such as a microswitch, for detecting that a battery 18 is accommodated therein .”, Col. 4, Lns . 51-58 } . Di Florio , Guillermin and Kokubu are analogous art because they both deal with interchangeable power supplies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Di Florio , Guillermin and Kokubu before them, to modify the teachings of Di Florio and Guillermin to include the teachings of Kokubu to detect proper docking of a removably connected battery { Col. 4, Lns . 51-58 } . Regarding Claim 10 , the combination of Di Florio and Guillermin discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra . the combination of Di Florio and Guillermin does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein said sensor is a proximity sensor. However, Kokubu explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said sensor is a proximity sensor {proper attachment of a battery is detected by a sensor in Col. 4, Lns . 51-58 , the example given is a microswitch, but one skilled in the art will appreciated various types of sensors are suitable including a proximity sensor} . Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Di Florio and Eshleman et al. ( US 12,036,888 B2 , henceforth Eshleman ). Regarding Claim 13 , Di Florio discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra . Di Florio does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the control means comprise a display configured for showing different specific interfaces for respective different energy sources, as a function of the management configuration established by the processing unit. However, Eshleman explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control means comprise a display configured for showing different specific interfaces for respective different energy sources, as a function of the management configuration established by the processing unit {Fig. 1 shows a lift device and Figs. 1-3 and 6-7 show the use of a phone app to monitor battery conditions, for a multi-battery power source; “The multiple batteries are configured to power the multiple electrical components. The controller is configured to obtain sensor data from the batteries. The controller is also configured to determine a state of charge of the batteries for open circuit conditions based on the sensor data. The controller is configured to determine a state of charge of the batteries for load conditions based on the sensor data.”, Abstract } . Di Florio and Eshleman are analogous art because they both deal with heavy duty work vehicles with multiple power sources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Di Florio and Eshleman before them, to modify the teachings of Di Florio to include the teachings of Eshleman to monitor vehicle power sources and conditions { Abstract } . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5854 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm . 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190 FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT . 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. /R.E.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665