DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2024, 12/19/2024, and 12/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 06/06/2024 in which claims 1-20 were canceled and claims 21-40 added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 21-26, 30, 33-36, and 38-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Hakim et al. [US 2008/0291663].
With respect to claim 21, Hakim discloses a method of charging a battery of a vehicle via a vehicular battery charger [Fig. 1], the method comprising: receiving, by a first, portable controller remote from the vehicle and the vehicular battery charger [450], data indicative of cost of power [Figs 9-10, par. 0115-0122]; establishing communication between the first controller and a second controller included in the vehicular battery charger [i.e. the wireless network]; and transmitting at least one signal from the first controller to the second controller to control the vehicular battery charger by at least one of a group consisting of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, and stopping battery charging [i.e. the user selection/response to the utility’s price to participate in a charging or discharging operation is equated to an increase and/or starting of the charging].
With respect to claim 22, Hakim further discloses wherein transmitting the at least one signal to control the vehicular battery charger includes transmitting the at least one signal based at least in part on the data indicative of cost of power [par. 0115-0122; i.e. the price threshold].
With respect to claim 23, Hakim further discloses wherein transmitting the at least one signal to control the vehicular battery charger includes transmitting the at least one signal to the second controller to start charging of the battery during a charging session of the battery [i.e. the user selection/response to the utility’s price to participate in a charging or discharging operation is equated to an increase and/or starting of the charging].
With respect to claim 24, Hakim further discloses wherein transmitting the at least one signal to control the vehicular battery charger includes transmitting the at least one signal to the second controller to stop charging of the battery during a charging session of the battery [i.e. the transmission includes a total amount of energy and therefore includes a command to stop, i.e. once specified amount of energy has been dispatch and/or once the vehicle has achieved a full charge].
With respect to claim 25, Hakim further discloses displaying, based on the data indicative of cost of power, a cost of power per unit of power on a user interface [via user interface 1220, i.e. phone 450].
With respect to claim 26, Hakim further discloses wherein displaying the cost of power per unit of power includes displaying the cost of power per unit of power while charging of the battery is in process with the vehicle charger [Fig. 10; i.e. shows a current/live view of the selected/approved cost of power].
With respect to claim 30, Hakim further discloses wherein receiving the data indicative of cost of power includes receiving, by the first controller, the data indicative of cost of power from a third controller remote from the vehicle and the vehicular battery charger [i.e. the utility].
With respect to claim 33, Hakim further discloses controlling the vehicular charger to stop charging based on a threshold cost of power [i.e. user entered price thresholds].
With respect to claim 34, Hakim further discloses comprising controlling the vehicular charger based on battery information stored in a memory of the battery [i.e. “control” equates to a controller which implicitly have memory to perform the instructions].
With respect to claim 35, Hakim further discloses controlling the vehicular charger based on a current power draw or an anticipated power draw [par. 0038; i.e. load controllers].
With respect to claim 36, Hakim further discloses controlling the vehicular charger to charge the battery to a predetermined level outside of a programmed charge [par. 0093-0095; i.e. the user drives up and charges the EV].
With respect to claim 38, Hakim further discloses receiving a communication, at the first controller, from the second controller regarding an event associated with a charging session of the battery [Figs 9-10].
With respect to claim 39, Hakim further discloses wherein the communication includes at least one of a text message, an email, an alert, and a telephone call [i.e. the mobile phone displays information in at least text].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 27-29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hakim et al. [US 2008/0291663] as applied above, and further in view of Hobbs [US 6,963,186].
With respect to claims 27-29, Hakim fails to further display a level of charge of the battery and a total cost, including simultaneous display.
However, displaying known information is well-known in the art especially including displaying voltage information of a battery in the art of battery charging. For example, Hobbs relates to battery charging and teaches displaying a level of charge of the battery [col. 17 lines 30-45] as well as a cost of power [col. 23 lines 15-35].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Hakim to further include simultaneous display of all the charging information (price/cost and voltage levels) for the benefit of providing the user with all the relevant information relating to the charging operation in order to quickly ascertain the prices and charge levels.
Claims 31-32 and 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hakim et al. [US 2008/0291663] as applied above, and further in view of Pryor [US 2008/0007202].
With respect to claims 31-32 and 37, Hakim fails to disclose receiving charging start/end times.
Pryor relates to optimizing grid charging and teaches further comprising receiving a battery charging start/end time and controlling the vehicular charger based upon the battery charging start/end time and receiving the predetermined level from a user interface [Figs 3-4, CIT and PCTT times plus a minimum charge level].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Hakim to further include the user controller charge times and levels for the benefit of controlling the charging operation based on user input/requirements.
Claim 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hakim et al. [US 2008/0291663] as applied above, and further in view of Hotta [US 5,650,710].
With respect to claim 40, Hakim further discloses receiving a threshold cost of power as detailed above, however, fails to explicitly disclose estimating a latest charge.
Hotta relates to scheduling charge times and teaches receiving a battery charging end time; estimating a latest time of day at which charging of the battery can begin based at least in part upon the battery charging end time; and starting charging of the battery with the vehicular charger in response to reaching the latest charge start time regardless of whether the threshold cost of power has been reached [Figs. 3-4; also see abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Hakim to select the latest charging time for the benefit of preventing self-discharged from standing for a long time stated by Hotta.
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 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,129. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are entirely encompassed by the conflicting patent, i.e. the instant claims are merely worded in a slightly broader format. Additionally, the dependent claims correspond in a one-to-one format.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights