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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR et al. (US 2024/0196038) in view of Madrid et al. (US 2019/0294135).
Claims 1 and 15: Bove, JR teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor (216) (Fig.2) cause the processor (216) to perform a method (Par.41 and 43) comprising:
querying a computer (control circuitry) of a vehicle (110), wherein the querying comprises receiving attributes of a rechargeable battery (116) of the vehicle (110) from the computer (Par.49 and 56);
determining a total charge time for the rechargeable battery (116) based on the attributes of the rechargeable battery (116) and attributes of a charging station (114) (Par.49; SOC of rechargeable battery and power rating of charging station);
selecting media content from among a plurality of media content based on the total charge time determined for the rechargeable battery (116) (Par.50); and
outputting the media content (Par.51).
Bove, JR does not explicitly teach querying the computer of the vehicle via a charging station; and outputting media content via the charging station.
Madrid teaches querying the computer (100) of a vehicle (231) via a charging station (240) (Par.40 and 73); and outputting media content via the charging station (240) (Par.39 and 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Madrid in the system of Bove, JR to have had reduced costs and prevented exceeding cellular network limits (Par.48); and have had permitted a higher volume of content to be transferred during a given time interval (Par.60).
Claims 2 and 16: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the selecting comprises querying an application programming interface (API) of an entertainment content distribution platform based on a value of the total charge time to select the media content from among the plurality of media content (Par.40).
Claims 5 and 19: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the selecting comprises selecting a video file that will finish playing before an end of the total charge time (Par.52) and the outputting comprises playing the video file via one or more of a user device (102c) (Fig.1) of an occupant in the vehicle (110) and a display device (102a) installed within the vehicle (110) (Par.51).
Claims 7 and 20: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the selecting comprises selecting a first media file and a second media file based on the total charge time for the rechargeable battery (116), and the outputting comprises playing the first media file on a first display device (102a) within the vehicle (110) and playing the second media file on a second display device (102c) within the vehicle (110) (Par.69).
Claim 8: Bove, JR teaches an apparatus (n-204) (Fig.2) comprising:
a memory (214) configured to store a plurality of media content (Par.41 and 43); and
a processor (216) communicably coupled to the memory (214), the processor (216) configured to:
query a computer (control circuitry) of a vehicle (110), wherein the querying comprises receiving attributes of a rechargeable battery (116) of the vehicle (110) from the computer (Par.49 and 56);
determine a total charge time for the rechargeable battery (116) based on the attributes of the rechargeable battery (116) and attributes of a charging station (114) (Par.49; SOC of rechargeable battery and power rating of charging station);
select media content from among a plurality of media content based on the total charge time determined for the rechargeable battery (116) (Par.50); and
output the media content (Par.51).
Bove, JR does not explicitly teach querying the computer of the vehicle via a charging station; and outputting media content via the charging station.
Madrid teaches querying the computer (100) of a vehicle (231) via a charging station (240) (Par.40 and 73); and outputting media content via the charging station (240) (Par.39 and 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Madrid in the system of Bove, JR to have had reduced costs and prevented exceeding cellular network limits (Par.48); and have had permitted a higher volume of content to be transferred during a given time interval (Par.60).
Claim 9: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claim 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the processor (216) is configured to query an application programming interface (API) of an entertainment content distribution platform based on a value of the total charge time to select the media content from among the plurality of media content (Par.40).
Claim 12: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claim 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the processor (216) is configured to select a video file that will finish playing before an end of the total charge time (Par.52) and play the video file via one or more of a user device (102c) (Fig.1) of an occupant in the vehicle (110) and a display device (102a) installed within the vehicle (110) (Par.51).
Claim 14: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claim 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the processor (216) is configured to select a first media file and a second media file based on the total charge time for the rechargeable battery (116) and play the first media file on a first display device (102a) within the vehicle (110) and playing the second media file on a second display device (102c) within the vehicle (110) (Par.69).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR et al. (US 2024/0196038) in view of Madrid et al. (US 2019/0294135) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Uesugi (US 2011/0246252).
Claims 3, 10 and 17: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the processor (216) is configured to determine the total charge time based on a current state of charge of the rechargeable battery (116) and charging station (114) availability (Par.64).
Bove, JR does not explicitly teach determining the total charge time based on a type of the rechargeable battery, and a capacity of the rechargeable battery.
Uesugi teaches determining a total charge time based on a type of rechargeable battery and a capacity of the rechargeable battery (Par.174-175).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Uesugi in the system of Bove, JR to have had accurately determined charging time for a specific battery (Par.163) thereby preventing battery damage.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR et al. (US 2024/0196038) in view of Madrid et al. (US 2019/0294135) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 2024/0416794).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR the processor is configured to determine the total charge time based on a battery power charging diagram, wherein the battery power charging diagram includes a first axis that represents a charging power of the charging station and a second axis that represents a state of charge of the rechargeable battery.
Tseng teaches a processor (212) configured to determine a total charge time based on a battery power charging diagram (Fig.5), wherein the battery power charging diagram includes a first axis that represents a charging power of a charging station and a second axis that represents a state of charge of a rechargeable battery (Par.61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Tseng in the system of Bove, JR to have had calculated the optimum time to charge the vehicle battery thereby saving charge time for the vehicle driver (Par.61).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR et al. (US 2024/0196038) in view of Madrid et al. (US 2019/0294135) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Turner (US 2011/0204847).
Claims 6 and 13: Bove, JR in view of Madrid teach the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the processor (216) is configured to select a video file that comprises an intermediate stopping point that will finish playing before an end of the total charge time (Par.52) and the outputting comprises playing the video file up until the intermediate stopping point (Par.51-52).
Bove, JR does not explicitly teach playing the video file via a user interface of the charging station.
Turner discloses playing a video file (Par.6) via a user interface (250) of a charging station (240) (Par.50 and 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Turner in the system of Bove, JR to have had provided a video that allows user interaction such as making selections on an advertisement (Par.50 and 92) thereby expanding the profitability of the charging station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian D Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights