DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 9/17/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 6/17/2026 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 14-15 and 19-20 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 14 is/are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 9/17/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 7 in “Remarks” regarding claim 1 that Austin and Fong do not teach the newly added limitation to determine, in response to receiving the first input, that a physical condition of the charge system for restarting the charge session is fulfilled, the physical condition separate from the available state-of-charge of the battery. Applicant elaborates that the only other condition apart from the state of charge described in Austin is detecting a cost of power being supplied, which is not a physical condition of the charge system as newly amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Austin discloses in Para. 98 that in response to first input, i.e. interruption of charging, charging can resume once physical condition, that is separate from the available state-of-charge, is met.
With respect to Applicant’s statement that Austin’s conditions are only limited to stat-of-charge and cost of power being supplied, Examiner points to Applicant’s newly added limitations in claim 7 which recite wherein the physical condition for restarting the charge session includes at least one of a continued connection of a charger to a vehicle, continued closure of battery contactors, or a calibratable amount of time has elapsed since receiving the first input.
Austin teaches this because Austin discloses in Para. 97 that physical condition for beginning charging can include setting a particular future time, i.e. calibratable amount of time after interruption, i.e. first input; further, Austin discloses in Para. 98 that resuming charge session is done in the same manner as beginning charging session above. Thus, Austin teaches Applicant’s newly amended limitation.
Applicant further states in Pg. 8 in “Remarks” regarding claim 1 that Fong does not teach the determining and the newly amended transmitting limitation.
Examiner respectfully notes that Fong was neither used in the prior office action, nor in the present one, to teach the determining and the newly amended portions of the transmitting limitation. Thus, the arguments related to Fong are moot.
Applicant further states in Pg. 9 in “Remarks” regarding claim 8 that the prior art does not teach transmitting a first output when the available state-of-charge of the battery is higher than the predetermined threshold. Applicant elaborates that Austin’s Para. 100 describes if the battery charge level is below the threshold instead of the above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Austin’s Para. 100 was not cited to reject any claim limitations. With respect to claim 8’s limitation outlined above, Austin teaches transmitting a first output when the available state-of-charge of the battery is higher than the predetermined threshold; this is because Austin discloses in Para. 99 that battery is charged until minimum threshold, i.e. predetermined threshold, is reached, i.e. state of charge is compared to threshold to insure minimum state of charge. Para. 105 of Austin further elaborates that the battery can be fully charged or at any other level, e.g. a minimum battery level. Thus, Austin transmits the first output to inhibit shutdown by reaching a charge above minimum charge, for e.g. full charge, or any amount of charge above the predetermined threshold, i.e. minimum charge. The quoted portions from Para. 100 of Austin in Pg. 9 of Applicant’s Remarks related to reaching the minimum threshold level of battery charge in the first place once the battery is depleted, and thus relates to a different scenario.
Applicant further states in Pg. 8 in “Remarks” regarding claim 8 that Fong’s Col. 6 Lines 9-18 do not teach commanding a charge controller to retain an auxiliary keyswitch input to inhibit shutdown of the powertrain controller because Fong is silent regarding the state of any keyswitch inputs during charging.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is Austin, and not Fong, that has been used to teach commanding a charge controller to inhibit shutdown of the powertrain controller (Austin, Para. 94, 150). Fong has only been used to teach to retain an auxiliary keyswitch input, not necessarily during charging, because Austin has been used to teach charging as outlined above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, it is the combination of Austin and Fong, and not taking either art individually/alone, that teaches the claim limitation.
Applicant further states in Pg. 10 in “Remarks” regarding claim 14 that Austin’s Para. 105 does not teach the newly added limitation of a stateflow to systematically check a plurality of vehicle systems to identify a reason for the failure of the charging session. Applicant elaborates in Pg. 10-11 that Austin does not teach a stateflow or any number of checks or systematically checking a plurality of vehicle systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Austin discloses in Para. 105 that failure status is communicated to a user including detecting and communicating to user battery fault condition, cord problem, etc., where specification of the reason for failure by system to user is a result of systematic check; further, Austin discloses in Fig. 4, Para. 53 that system handles plurality of vehicles; further, Austin discloses in Para. 62, 128 that system controller can be programmable/non-programmable processor, system/set of discrete logic elements, and any combination thereof, i.e. system executes a stateflow, where stateflow is what uses sequential decision logic or if/else logic loops as outlined in Para. 9 of Applicant’s Specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0148789) (hereinafter “Austin”) in view of Fong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,906,414) (hereinafter “Fong”).
Regarding claim 1, Austin teaches a charge system for restarting an AC charging session, (Para. 54 - - AC charging system is used; Para. 94 - - charging can resume, i.e. restart)
the charge system comprising: a controller, the controller configured to: receive a first input identifying a charge session interruption; (Para. 105 - - interruption is identified and received)
receive a second input identifying an available state-of-charge of a battery; (Fig. 6-9, 12 - - state of charge is received)
compare the available state-of-charge of the battery with a predetermined threshold; (Para. 99 - - battery is charged until minimum threshold, i.e. predetermined threshold, is reached, i.e. state of charge is compared to threshold to insure minimum state of charge)
in response to receiving the first input, determine that a physical condition of the charge system for restarting the charge session is fulfilled, the physical condition separate from the available state-of-charge of the battery; (Para. 98 - - in response to first input, i.e. interruption of charging, charging can resume once physical condition, that is separate from the available state-of-charge, is met)
and transmit a first output to command…the charge session when the available state-of-charge of the battery is less than the predetermined threshold and the physical condition of the charge system is fulfilled. (Para. 94 - - charging can resume after interruption based on battery state of charge; Para. 99 - - battery is charged until minimum threshold, i.e. predetermined threshold, is reached; Para. 98 - - charging can resume, i.e. first output to command the charge session, once physical condition is met)
But Austin does not explicitly teach a first attempt to restart the charge session
However, Fong teaches a first attempt to restart the charge session (Fig. 4 - - attempt is made to restart charging session)
Austin and Fong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain controlling the charging of electric vehicles.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Austin, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Fong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to restart charging without the need to unplug, as suggested by Fong (Col. 1 Lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 2, Austin teaches wherein the controller is configured to continuously receive the second input identifying the available state-of-charge of the battery. (Fig. 6-9, 12 - - state of charge is received)
Regarding claim 3, Fong teaches wherein, when a first attempt to restart the charge session fails, the controller is configured to allow a calibratable amount of time to lapse before transmitting a second output to initiate a second attempt to restart the charge session. (Fig. 4 - - charging is attempted again, i.e. at least a second time, if the restart is not successful, i.e. fails, where checking is performed before next restart attempt which allows a calibratable amount of time to lapse)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to restart charging without the need to unplug, as suggested by Fong (Col. 1 Lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 4, Austin teaches wherein the controller is configured to feed a hardcoded false output to an interface parameter for the calibratable amount of time to inhibit controller shutdown. (Para. 150 - - acceptable error inhibits controller shutdown, where the error, i.e. false output, is acceptable, i.e. controller shutdown is inhibited, and where interface includes calibratable parameters)
Regarding claim 5, Austin teaches wherein, when the second attempt to restart the charge session fails, the charge system is configured to allow shutdown of the controller. (Para. 94 - - charging can resume, i.e. restart, after interruption based on battery state of charge)
Regarding claim 6, Austin teaches a charger having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the charger is in the locked position when the controller transmits the first output. (Para. 50 - - connection/coupling is used for charger)
Regarding claim 7, Austin teaches wherein the charge system is configured to operate with one or more fuel cell electric vehicles, (Fig. 2-4 - - electric vehicles are used)
and wherein the physical condition for restarting the charge session includes at least one of a continued connection of a charger to a vehicle, continued closure of battery contactors, or a calibratable amount of time has elapsed since receiving the first input. (Para. 97 - - physical condition for beginning charging can include setting a particular future time, i.e. calibratable amount of time after interruption, i.e. first input; Para. 98 - - resuming charge session is done in the same manner as beginning charging session above)
Regarding claim 8, Austin teaches a charge system for mitigating low voltage battery depletion, (Para. 94 - - charging can resume, i.e. restart, after interruption based on battery state of charge)
the charge system comprising: a powertrain controller, the powertrain controller configured (Para. 62 - - controller is used)
to: receive a first input identifying a charge session termination; (Para. 105 - - interruption is identified and received)
receive a second input identifying an available state-of-charge of a battery; (Fig. 6-9, 12 - - state of charge is received)
compare the available state-of-charge of the battery with a predetermined threshold; and when the available state-of-charge of the battery is higher than the predetermined threshold, (Para. 99 - - battery is charged until minimum threshold, i.e. predetermined threshold, is reached, i.e. state of charge is compared to threshold to insure minimum state of charge)
transmit a first output commanding a charge controller…to inhibit shutdown of the powertrain controller. (Para. 94 - - charging can resume after interruption based on battery state of charge; Para. 150 - - acceptable error inhibits controller shutdown, where the error, i.e. false output, is acceptable, i.e. controller shutdown is inhibited, and where interface includes calibratable parameters)
But Austin does not explicitly teach to retain an auxiliary keyswitch input to inhibit shutdown
However, Fong teaches to retain an auxiliary keyswitch input (Fig. 4 - - attempt is made to restart charging session, where attempt retains input to inhibit shutdown, i.e. attempting again without shutting down; Col. 6 Lines 9-18 - - switching is controlled, i.e. switch input)
Austin and Fong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain controlling the charging of electric vehicles.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Austin, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Fong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to restart charging without the need to unplug, as suggested by Fong (Col. 1 Lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 9, Austin teaches wherein the powertrain controller is configured to transmit a second output commanding contactors of the battery to remain closed. (Para. 50 - - connection/coupling is used for charger)
Regarding claim 10, Austin teaches wherein the powertrain controller is configured to transmit a third output commanding a DC-DC converter to regulate a voltage of a low voltage battery at a predetermined setpoint. (Para. 137 - - DC to DC converters are used)
Regarding claim 11, Austin teaches wherein the powertrain controller is configured to continuously receive the first input identifying the available state-of-charge of the battery. (Fig. 6-9, 12 - - state of charge is received)
Regarding claim 12, Austin teaches wherein the powertrain controller is configured to identify an event in which the available state-of-charge of the battery is depleted beneath the predetermined threshold. (Para. 94 - - charging can resume, i.e. restart, after interruption based on battery state of charge)
Regarding claim 13, Austin teaches wherein the powertrain controller is configured to transmit a fourth output to attempt to restart the charge session when the available state- of-charge of the battery is less than the predetermined threshold. (Para. 94 - - charging can resume, i.e. restart, after interruption based on battery state of charge)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austin.
Regarding claim 14, Austin teaches a charge system for tracking metrics of a charging session, the charge system comprising: a controller; and a memory; (Para. 76 - - charge session is monitored, i.e. tracking metrics of charging session; Para. 8-9, 62 - - controller with memory is used)
wherein the controller is configured to: receive a first input identifying a failure of a charging session; (Para. 105 - - interruption/failure is identified and received)
execute a stateflow to systematically check a plurality of vehicle systems to identify a reason for the failure of the charging session; (Para. 105 - - failure status is communicated to a user including detecting and communicating to user battery fault condition, cord problem, etc., where specification of the reason for failure by system to user is a result of systematic check; Fig. 4, Para. 53 - - system handles plurality of vehicles; Para. 62, 128 - - system controller can be programmable/non-programmable processor, system/set of discrete logic elements, and any combination thereof, i.e. system executes a stateflow, where stateflow is what uses sequential decision logic or if/else logic loops as outlined in Para. 9 of Applicant’s Specification)
and record the reason for the failure of the charging session in the memory. (Para. 105 - - failure reason is communicated to user, i.e. record reason for the failure)
Regarding claim 15, Austin teaches wherein the failure of the charging session is a result of an unexpected termination of the charging session, (Para. 105 - - interruption is identified and received)
and wherein the stateflow is configured to check at least one of: whether one or more battery contactors are closed, whether a charger is connected, and whether charging has been disabled. (Para. 105 - - failure status is communicated to a user including detecting and communicating to user battery fault condition, cord problem, etc.)
Regarding claim 16, Austin teaches wherein the controller is configured to further identify at least one of: a charging session type, a charging session number, a duration of an active charging session, a net state-of-charge change, a duration of active charge, a measurement of net energy delivered into high voltage batteries, a duration of connection to a charger, a duration of delay of the charging session, and a duration of discharge. (Para. 105 - - interruption is identified)
Regarding claim 17, Austin teaches wherein the controller is configured to identify ten metrics of the charging session. (Fig. 6-9, 12 - - state of charge is received)
Regarding claim 18, Austin teaches wherein the controller is configured to record the metrics in an array. (Para. 96 - - metrics are recorded)
Regarding claim 19, Austin teaches a user interface configured to access the memory and display the reason for the failure. (Para. 178, Claim 6 - - user interface is used to display; Para. 105 - - failure status is communicated to a user including detecting and communicating to user battery fault condition, cord problem, etc.)
Regarding claim 20, Austin teaches wherein the user interface is configured to display the reason for the failure for a plurality of vehicles. (Para. 178, Claim 6 - - user interface is used to display; Para. 105 - - failure status is communicated to a user including detecting and communicating to user battery fault condition, cord problem, etc.)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0117946 by Muller et al., which discloses charging a plug-in electric vehicle including delayed battery charging feature and battery depletion determination (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0108438 by Mallia et al., which discloses controlling power distribution to vehicles including avoiding charging during charge-averse time periods or during charge restriction events (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights