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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 27-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.18/115644, Application No.17/021561, Application No.15/222813, and U.S. Provisional Application No.62/263,564 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior-filed applications do not include support for the first predetermined charge threshold being substantially half charged; the first predetermined charge threshold being within a range of 60-80 percent; nor the first predetermined charge threshold being substantially 90 percent. Accordingly, claims 2, 4-5, 14 and 19-21.
The prior-filed applications do not include support for charging multiple below a second predetermined charge threshold and above the first predetermined charge threshold one at a time; and charging EV’s to a third predetermined charge threshold one at a time. Accordingly, claims 12-15 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
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 11-15 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.
Claim 11, Lines 2-3; and Claim 13, Line 4 recite the limitation “sequence from one to N”.
The claims do not define what “N” is.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 11, Lines 2-3; and Claim 13, Line 4 is interpreted as: sequence from one to N, where N is a natural number,.
Claims 12-15 depend from claim 11 and are rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons as described above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the third threshold" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a third predetermined charge threshold” in Lines 4-5.
It is unclear if the third threshold recited in Line 3 is the same threshold as recited in Lines 4-5 or a different threshold.
For purpose of examination the limitation of Claim 13, Line 3 is interpreted as reciting: a third predetermined charge threshold.
The limitation of Claim 13, Lines 4-5 is interpreted as reciting: the third predetermined charge threshold.
Claims 14-15 depend from claim 13 and are rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons as described above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 17-18 and 23-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851 in view of Caffy (US 2013/0314037).
Claim 1 is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851.
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 discloses a controller comprising a central processing unit and implemented on a single printed circuit board; a plurality of output connections coupled to the controller; and directing AC charging current to a first one of the output connections if a first EV is connected; in addition to other limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
US Patent No. 11,590,851 does not recite determine a state of charge of an EV connected to a first output head coupled to the first output connection; and stop the charging current directed to the first output connection and directing the charging current to a second output connection when the state of charge of the EV is above a first predetermined charge threshold.
Caffy discloses determining a state of charge (fraction of battery charge capacity) of an EV (200 #1) connected to a first output head coupled to the first output connection (120 #1) (Par.36); and stopping the charging current directed to the first output connection (120 #1) and directing the charging current to a second output connection (120 #4) in the round-robin sequence when the state of charge (fraction of battery charge capacity) of the EV (200 #1) is above a first predetermined charge threshold (Par.36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 as disclosed in Caffy to have had provided optimized efficiency of the charging system and increased the amount of vehicles that can be charged in the least amount of time (Par.41).
Claims 17, and 25 correspond to claims 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851.
Claim 18 is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851.
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 does not explicitly teach wherein the determine that a charging status of the first EV is above a threshold comprises the controller accessing an EV charge signature of the EV.
Caffy teaches wherein the determine that a charging status of the first EV is above a threshold comprises the controller accessing an EV charge signature of the EV (Par.36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 as disclosed in Caffy to have had accurately determined when to start and discontinue charging of a vehicle based on the amount of charge in the vehicle battery (Par.36-37).
Claims 23-24 are rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851.
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is operable to stop the charging current directed to the second output connection, and to direct the charging current to a third output connection when the state of charge of an EV connected to a second output head coupled to the second output connection is above the first predetermined charge threshold; wherein the controller is further operable to: determine that a plurality of EVs are connected to the plurality of output connections; and charge the plurality of EVs one at a time in a round robin fashion until the each EV of the plurality of EVs reaches the first predetermined charge threshold.
Caffy teaches a controller (140) operable to stop the charging current directed to a second output connection (120 #4), and to direct the charging current to a third output connection (120 #3) when the state of charge of an EV (200 #4) connected to a second output head coupled to the second output connection (120 #4) is above the first predetermined charge threshold (Par.36); wherein the controller (140) is further operable to: determine that a plurality of EVs (200) are connected to the plurality of output connections (120) (Par.35); and charge the plurality of EVs one at a time in a round robin fashion until the each EV of the plurality of EVs reaches the first predetermined charge threshold (Par.36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had modified Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 as disclosed in Caffy to have had provided optimized efficiency of the charging system and increased the amount of vehicles that can be charged in the least amount of time (Par.41).
Claims 19-21 are rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851 in view of Caffy (US 2013/0314037), and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2020/0376972).
The combination Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 in view of Caffy does not explicitly teach wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when the EV is substantially half charged based on the EV charge signature of the EV; wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when the EV is substantially within a range of 60-80 percent charged based on the EV charge signature of the EV; wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when the EV is substantially 90 percent charged based on the EV charge signature of the EV.
Martin teaches a second predetermined charge threshold (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 12) above a first predetermined charge threshold (50%) (Par.63) (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 10) but below a third predetermined charge threshold (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 14); wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when a respective EV is substantially half charged (Par.63; 50%), wherein the second predetermined charge threshold is reached when the respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially 70% charged (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 12), and wherein the third predetermined charge threshold is reached when the respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially 90% charged (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 14).
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 Martin in the combination to have had reduced charging power based on an increase on state of charge (Par.63) to have had prevented high power being provided to a substantially charged battery thereby protecting the charging battery and improving battery life.
Claim 22 is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,851 in view of Caffy (US 2013/0314037), and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2024/0140253).
Caffy teaches the controller is also operable to stop the charging current directed to the first output connection after 30 minutes (Par.37).
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 in view of Caffy does not explicitly teach stop charging regardless of the state of charge.
Bennett teaches stopping a charging current directed to a first output connection after some time threshold, regardless of state of charge (Par.44).
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 Bennett in the combination of Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,590,851 in view of Caffy to have had sequentially charged vehicles in set increments of time to have had equally shared the available power (Par.44).
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caffy (US 2013/0314037) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2012/0330494).
Claim 1: Caffy teaches a method of charging one or more electric vehicles (200) (Fig.4) (EVs), the method comprising:
directing a charging current from a higher voltage side to a plurality of output connections (120 #1-#6) in a round-robin sequence (Par.36; One at a time.), said directing the charging current from the higher voltage side comprising:
directing the charging current to a first output connection (120 #1) of the plurality of output connections (120 #1-#6) (Par.35);
determining a state of chargeof an EV (200 #1) connected to a first output head coupled to the first output connection (120 #1) (Par.36); and
stopping the charging current directed to the first output connection (120 #1) and directing the charging current to a second output connection (120 #4) in the round-robin sequence when the state of charge of the EV (200 #1) is above a first predetermined charge threshold (Par.36).
Caffy does not explicitly teach receiving, at a higher voltage side of a printed circuit board comprising a controller and a processor, an alternating current (AC) charging current over a dedicated circuit from an electric power supply, the printed circuit board also comprising a lower voltage side that receives power from a second power supply to power the processor, the lower voltage side receiving a voltage less than a voltage received by the higher voltage side.
Hendrix teaches a method of charging one or more electric vehicles (EVs) (110) (Fig.3), the method comprising:
receiving, at a higher voltage side (213) (Fig.4a) of a printed circuit board comprising a controller (230) and a processor (234) (Fig.4b) (Par.65), an alternating current (AC) charging current over a dedicated circuit (211) from an electric power supply (210) (Par.64-65), the printed circuit board also comprising a lower voltage side (232) that receives power from a second power supply to power the processor (234), the lower voltage side (232) receiving a voltage less than a voltage received by the higher voltage side (213) (Par.65).
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 Hendrix in the system of Caffy to have had provided a suitable power for utilization by low voltage components while directing higher charging power used to charge electric vehicles (Par.65) thereby preventing damage to components due to inappropriate input power.
Claim 3: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches wherein the determining a state of charge of an EV (200 #1) connected to a first output head coupled to the first output connection (120 #1) comprises accessing an EV charge signature of the EV (200 #1) (Par.36-37).
Claim 4: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 3 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when the EV (200 #1) is substantially within a range of 60-80 percent charged based on the EV charge signature of the EV (Par.36 and 41; 80%).
Claim 5: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 3 as disclosed above. Caffy teachers wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when the EV (200 #1) is substantially 90 percent charged based on the EV charge signature of the EV (Par.36 and 41, 85%).
Claim 6: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 3 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches further comprising stopping the charging current directed to the second output connection (120 #4) and directing the charging current to a third output connection (120 #3) when the state of charge of a second EV (200 #4) connected to a second output head coupled to the second output connection (120 #4) is above the first predetermined charge threshold based on the EV charge signature of the EV (200 #4) (Par.36-37).
Claim 8: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches further comprising: determining that a plurality of EVs (200 #1- #4) (Fig.4) are connected to the plurality of output connections (120 #1-#4) (Fig.4); and charging the plurality of EVs (200 #1- #4) one at a time in a round robin fashion until each EV of the plurality of EVs (200 #1- #4) reaches the first predetermined charge threshold (Par.36).
Claim 9: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches further comprising determining, before the charging current is provided to the first output connection (120 #1), whether there is an electrical load coupled to the first output connection (120 #1), wherein the charging current is not directed to the first output connection (120 #1) if there is not an electrical load coupled to the output connection (Par.35 and 49-50).
Claim 11: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches wherein the charging current is directed to the plurality of output connections (120 #1-#6) (Fig.4) in round-robin fashion one at a time in a sequence from one to N, where N is a natural number, then back to one when multiple EVs (200) are concurrently connected to the output connections (Par.43).
Claim 12: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 11 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches wherein directing the charging current to the plurality of output connections in the round-robin sequence comprises: charging multiple EVs below the first predetermined charge threshold one at a time in the round-robin sequence until each of the multiple EVs below the first predetermined charge threshold reaches the first predetermined charge threshold (Par.36); and charging multiple EVs below a second predetermined charge threshold and above the first predetermined charge threshold one at a time in the round robin sequence until each of the multiple EVs below the second predetermined charge threshold and above the first threshold reaches the second predetermined charge threshold (Par.42; The vehicles are topped off one at a time after they have all been charged to the predetermined fraction.).
Claim 26: Caffy teaches a method of charging one or more electric vehicles (EVs) (200) (Fig.4), the method comprising:
directing a charging current from a higher voltage side to a plurality of output connections (120 #1-#6) in a round-robin sequence (Par.36; One at a time.), said directing the charging current from the higher voltage side comprising:
directing the charging current to a first output connection (120 #1) of the plurality of output connections (120 #1-#6) (Par.35);
determining a state of charge of an EV (200 #1) connected to a first output head coupled to the first output connection (120 #1) (Par.36); and
determining that the EV (200 #1) connected to the first output connection (120 #1) is an only EV connected to any output connection of the plurality of output connections (120 #1-#6) (Par.31); and
continuing to charge the EV (200 #1) beyond the first predetermined charge threshold responsive to the determining that the EV connected (200 #1) to the first output connection (120 #1) is the only EV connected to any output connection of the plurality of output connections regardless of the state of charge of the EV (200 #1) connected to a first output head coupled to the first output being above the first predetermined charge threshold (Par.31).
Caffy does not explicitly teach receiving, at a higher voltage side of a printed circuit board comprising a controller and a processor, an alternating current (AC) charging current over a dedicated circuit from an electric power supply, the printed circuit board also comprising a lower voltage side that receives power from a second power supply to power the processor, the lower voltage side receiving a voltage less than a voltage received by the higher voltage side.
Hendrix teaches a method of charging one or more electric vehicles (EVs) (110) (Fig.3), the method comprising:
receiving, at a higher voltage side (213) (Fig.4a) of a printed circuit board comprising a controller (230) and a processor (234) (Fig.4b) (Par.65), an alternating current (AC) charging current over a dedicated circuit (211) from an electric power supply (210) (Par.64-65), the printed circuit board also comprising a lower voltage side (232) that receives power from a second power supply to power the processor (234), the lower voltage side (232) receiving a voltage less than a voltage received by the higher voltage side (213) (Par.65).
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 Hendrix in the system of Caffy to have had provided a suitable power for utilization by low voltage components while directing higher charging power used to charge electric vehicles (Par.65) thereby preventing damage to components due to inappropriate input power.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caffy (US 2013/0314037) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2012/0330494) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaither et al. (US 2025/0256605).
Claim 2: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy does not explicitly teach wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when the EV is substantially half charged.
Gaither teaches a first predetermined charge threshold is reached when an EV is substantially half charged (Par.51; 50 percent).
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 Gaither in the system of Caffy to have had a minimum charging threshold encompassing a minimum amount of charge necessary for the vehicle to operate (Par.51) thereby allowing for vehicle operation if no further charge is able to be provided.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caffy (US 2013/0314037) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2012/0330494) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2024/0140253).
Claim 7: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy does not explicitly teach further comprising stopping the charging current directed to the first output connection after some time threshold, regardless of the state of charge.
Bennett teaches stopping a charging current directed to a first output connection after some time threshold, regardless of state of charge (Par.44).
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 Bennett in the system of Caffy to have had sequentially charged vehicles in set increments of time to have had equally shared the available power (Par.44).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caffy (US 2013/0314037) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2012/0330494) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaghefinazari (US 2016/0193932).
Claim 10: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Caffy does not explicitly teach wherein the first output connection is further coupled to a second output head, wherein the first output connection is operable to split the charging current between the first output head and the second output head if the first and second heads are concurrently connected to EVs that are below the first predetermined charge threshold.
Vaghefinazari teaches a first output connection (202) (Fig.2B) coupled to a first output head (Connector 1) and a second output head (Connector 2) (Par.152), wherein the first output connection (202) is operable to split a charging current between the first output head (Connector 1) and the second output head (Connector 2) if the first and second heads are concurrently connected to EVs (PEV1 and PEV2) (Par.284) that are below a first predetermined charge threshold (Par.285).
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 Vaghefinazari in the system of Caffy to have had provided power to multiple vehicles simultaneously (Par.284) to have had maintained a reached desired SOC threshold (Par.285).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caffy (US 2013/0314037) in view of Hendrix et al. (US 2012/0330494) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2020/0376972).
Claims 13-15: Caffy in view of Hendrix teach the limitations of claim 12 as disclosed above. Caffy teaches directing the charging current to the plurality of output connections (120 #1,#4,#3) (Fig.4) in round-robin fashion one at a time in the sequence from one to N, where N is a natural number, until each of the multiple EVs (200 #1,#4,#3) reaches a predetermined charge threshold (Par.36); wherein a controller (140) is further operable for determining, before the charging current is provided to an output connection, whether there is an electrical load coupled to the output connection, wherein the charging current is not directed to the output connection if there is not an electrical load coupled to the output connection (Par.35 and 49-50).
Caffy does not explicitly teach charging the multiple EVs above the second threshold but below a third predetermined charge threshold; wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when a respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially half charged, wherein the second predetermined charge threshold is reached when the respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially 70% charged, and wherein the third predetermined charge threshold is reached when the respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially 90% charged.
Martin teaches a second predetermined charge threshold (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 12) above a first predetermined charge threshold (50%) (Par.63) (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 10) but below a third predetermined charge threshold (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 14); wherein the first predetermined charge threshold is reached when a respective EV is substantially half charged (Par.63; 50%), wherein the second predetermined charge threshold is reached when the respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially 70% charged (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 12), and wherein the third predetermined charge threshold is reached when the respective EV of the multiple EVs is substantially 90% charged (Fig.1; battery SOC at reference point 14).
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 Martin in the system of Caffy to have had reduced charging power based on an increase on state of charge (Par.63) to have had prevented high power being provided to a substantially charged battery thereby protecting the charging battery and improving battery life.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859