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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11-13, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 25 February 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claim Interpretation
The term “discrete operational task” in claims 1-2, 11-13, and 15 are not supported by the specification. The applicant’s specification does not use the term “discrete operational task.” The applicant’s specification uses task(s) where is can be travel between two waypoints (Spec: Para. 39), number of trips between two or more waypoints (Spec: Para. 40), chagrining (Spec: Para. 46), and move the heavy machine from one location to another, and/or accomplish any number of tasks. The applicant gives an example of a heavy machine may lift materials or move materials from one location to another (Spec: Para. 17). The examiner is interoperating “task(s)” as a board term that includes moving between two points, charging, lifting material, and/or moving material.
The limitation “physically coupled to a battery and external to the battery” in claims 1 and 12 are not supported by the specification. The applicant’s specification does not include physically or external. The applicant’s specification includes a battery monitor may comprise a voltage sensor and/or a current sensor. The current sensor may be placed in series with the main wiring. The voltage sensor may be placed in parallel with the battery, such as coupled to battery terminals or across the electric load(s) or the voltage may be determined from the vehicle electronic system by the interface. It also teaches the current and voltage change obtained from the interface (Spec: Para. 26). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “physically coupled to a battery” is an item on the vehicle that is electronically connected through wiring or through the interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “discrete operational task” in claims 1-2, 11-13, and 15 are not supported by the specification.
The limitation “physically coupled to a battery and external to the battery” in claims 1 and 12 are not supported by the specification.
Because claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 112(a), the remaining dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also therefore rejected.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling et al. (US Publication 2024/0067038 A1) in view of Ferchau et al. (US Patent 11,801,769 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dowling teaches a system for reporting a state of charge of an electric machine during a discrete operational task, the system comprising: a battery monitor physically coupled to a battery and the external to the battery, the battery monitor measuring a battery charge in the battery (Dowling: Para. 20-21; one or more controllers may be communicatively coupled with a central control office and each of the electric mining vehicles, the energy storage devices; sensed battery characteristic data including one or more of a State of Charge); a processor coupled to the battery monitor, the processor configured to execute instructions from a computer-readable memory (Dowling: Para. 21; controllers may be programmed to receive data indicative of an energy storage profile for each of the energy storage devices) to: determine a change in the battery charge for a duration of the discrete operational task to provide a task charge (Dowling: Para. 27, 39; predict energy usage based on comparisons of historical and real time data for same or similar machines operating along same or similar energy zones and travel route segments and determine the most efficient speed, acceleration, braking, and other operational parameters for completing desired tasks along various travel route segments).
Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach determine a number of remaining tasks from the battery charge and the task charge.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine a number of remaining tasks from the battery charge and the task charge (Ferchau: Col. 6 Lines 43-45, Col. 7 Lines 59-65, Col. 11 Lines 18-35, Col. 12 Lines 29-31, Table 1; information on SOC and the number of batteries that are online/connected, controller can estimate how much energy capacity is still available; SP system loads in a typical SP vehicle; first circuits to be turned off if the current SOC.sub.SP and current load/draw determinations in SP system controller project a run time shorter than the user input time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 2, Dowling teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the discrete operational task is travel from or to at least one waypoint (Dowling: Para. 19; amount of energy that would be consumed by an electric machine when traversing that particular energy zone).
Regarding claim 3, Dowling teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the task charge is different depending on a direction travelled from or to the at least one waypoint (Dowling: Para. 19; amount of energy that would be consumed by an electric machine when traversing that particular energy zone, either in a loaded or in an unloaded state).
Regarding claim 4, Dowling teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein a sensor is selected from at least one of: a global positioning sensor (GPS), at least one magnetometer, a cellular triangulation, an altimeter, a tilt sensor, a wireless receiver and at least one wireless beacon, and at least one accelerometer (Dowling: Para. 28, 44; determine the vehicle location; electric mining vehicle traveling over a particular energy zone between identified wireless nodes of a travel route).
Regarding claim 5, Dowling teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise: reserving a reserve of the battery charge so that the electric machine reaches a charging station on a task completion (Dowling: Para. 24, 36; predicting the energy requirements: determining whether the machine will be able to complete certain tasks with the available amounts of energy, and then return to a battery exchange or charging station).
Regarding claim 6, Dowling teaches the system according to claim 1, …….. ; and a voltage sensor measuring at least one voltage measurement (Dowling: Para. 43; voltage of the battery; information may be acquired by measuring (e.g., by sensors)).
Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the battery monitor comprises at least one of: a current sensor measuring at least one current measurement.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the battery monitor comprises at least one of: a current sensor measuring at least one current measurement (Ferchau: Col. 7 Lines 38-45; battery management system; BMS or separately integrated into each bank are voltage, temperature and current sensors; data links from each battery bank BMS communicate battery state, temperature, current and voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 7, Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the current sensor measures the at least one current measurement without disconnecting the battery.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the current sensor measures the at least one current measurement without disconnecting the battery (Ferchau: Col. 7 Lines 38-45; battery management system; BMS or separately integrated into each bank are voltage, temperature and current sensors; data links from each battery bank BMS communicate battery state, temperature, current and voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 9, Dowling teaches the system according to claim 6, further comprising a server computer system receiving at least one of: a task type, the duration, the at least one current measurement, the at least one voltage measurement, and the task charge from the processor (Dowling: Para. 27, 37; data retrieved from one or more databases stored in memory onboard the machine, and/or information provided by a central command or back office servers; measure the actual factors indicative of energy consumption of the machine along the different energy zones; characteristics of the route, such as soft underfoot conditions, type of surface, granularity of the surface, wetness or dryness of the surface, topography, the battery state-of-health (SOH), state-of-charge (SOC)).
Regarding claim 10, Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach further comprises computing a power from the at least one current measurement and the at least one voltage measurement; and integrating the power for the duration.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprises computing a power from the at least one current measurement and the at least one voltage measurement (Ferchau: Col. 7 Lines 38-45, 59-63; battery bank BMS communicate battery state, temperature, current and voltage to SP system controller; monitoring power flow and comparing it to theoretical battery capacity or by comparing voltage to a battery manufacturer supplied voltage/SOC curve); and integrating the power for the duration (Ferchau: Col. 10 Lines 42-44; SP system power draw is a real-time measurement of energy usage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 11, Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the processor determines the number of the remaining tasks based on the task charge of a plurality of discrete operational tasks.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor determines the number of the remaining tasks based on the task charge of a plurality of discrete operational tasks (Ferchau: Col. 12 Lines 24-31; SP system current power draw is determined; comparison of measure SP system charge parameters to an initial configurable pre-set limit(s); a time to SOC.sub.SP-min less than three hours).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 12, Dowling teaches a method for reporting a state of charge of an electric machine, the method comprising: measuring a battery charge using a battery monitor physically coupled to a battery and external to the battery (Dowling: Para. 20-21; one or more controllers may be communicatively coupled with a central control office and each of the electric mining vehicles, the energy storage devices; sensed battery characteristic data including one or more of a State of Charge); determining a change in the battery charge during a discrete operational task to provide a task charge (Dowling: Para. 27, 39; predict energy usage based on comparisons of historical and real time data for same or similar machines operating along same or similar energy zones and travel route segments and determine the most efficient speed, acceleration, braking, and other operational parameters for completing desired tasks along various travel route segments).
Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach determining a number of remaining tasks from the battery charge and the task charge.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a number of remaining tasks from the battery charge and the task charge (Ferchau: Col. 6 Lines 43-45, Col. 7 Lines 59-65, Col. 11 Lines 18-35, Col. 12 Lines 29-31, Table 1; information on SOC and the number of batteries that are online/connected, controller can estimate how much energy capacity is still available; SP system loads in a typical SP vehicle; first circuits to be turned off if the current SOC.sub.SP and current load/draw determinations in SP system controller project a run time shorter than the user input time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 13, Dowling teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the discrete operational task is travel from or to at least one waypoints (Dowling: Para. 19; amount of energy that would be consumed by an electric machine when traversing that particular energy zone).
Regarding claim 14, Dowling teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the task charge is different depending on a direction travelled to or from the at least one waypoint (Dowling: Para. 19; amount of energy that would be consumed by an electric machine when traversing that particular energy zone, either in a loaded or in an unloaded state).
Regarding claim 15, Dowling teaches the method according to claim 12, …….. ; the sensor is selected from at least one of: a global positioning sensor (GPS), at least one magnetometer, a wireless triangulation, an altimeter, a tilt sensor, a wireless receiver and at least one wireless beacon, and at least one accelerometer (Dowling: Para. 28, 44; determine the vehicle location; electric mining vehicle traveling over a particular energy zone between identified wireless nodes of a travel route).
Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach further comprises determining a duration of the discrete operational task using a sensor or an input device.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprises determining a duration of the discrete operational task using a sensor or an input device (Ferchau: Col. 12 Lines 3-4; user inputs include a desired Run Time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 16, Dowling teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprise: reserving a reserve of the battery charge for the electric machine to reach a charging station (Dowling: Para. 24, 36; predicting the energy requirements: determining whether the machine will be able to complete certain tasks with the available amounts of energy, and then return to a battery exchange or charging station).
Regarding claim 17, Dowling teaches the method according to claim 15, ……. ; and a voltage sensor measuring at least one voltage measurement (Dowling: Para. 43; voltage of the battery; information may be acquired by measuring (e.g., by sensors)).
Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the battery monitor comprises at least one of: a current sensor measuring at least one current measurement.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the battery monitor comprises at least one of: a current sensor measuring at least one current measurement (Ferchau: Col. 7 Lines 38-45; battery management system; BMS or separately integrated into each bank are voltage, temperature and current sensors; data links from each battery bank BMS communicate battery state, temperature, current and voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 18, Dowling doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the current sensor measures the at least one current measurement without disconnecting the battery.
However Ferchau, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the current sensor measures the at least one current measurement without disconnecting the battery (Ferchau: Col. 7 Lines 38-45; battery management system; BMS or separately integrated into each bank are voltage, temperature and current sensors; data links from each battery bank BMS communicate battery state, temperature, current and voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because mission critical components will never be shut down by an automated system as long as there is sufficient capacity available under various power scenarios to maintain it (Ferchau: Col. Lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 20, Dowling teaches the method according to claim 17, further comprising a server computer system receiving at least one of: a task type, the duration, the at least one current measurement, the at least one voltage measurement, and the task charge (Dowling: Para. 27, 37; data retrieved from one or more databases stored in memory onboard the machine, and/or information provided by a central command or back office servers; measure the actual factors indicative of energy consumption of the machine along the different energy zones; characteristics of the route, such as soft underfoot conditions, type of surface, granularity of the surface, wetness or dryness of the surface, topography, the battery state-of-health (SOH), state-of-charge (SOC)).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowling et al. (US Publication 2024/0067038 A1) in view of Ferchau et al. (US Patent 11,801,769 B1) and in further view of Osada et al. (US Publication 2025/0309396 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dowling and Ferchau don’t explicitly teach wherein the current sensor is a hall-effect sensor.
However Osada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the current sensor is a hall-effect sensor (Osada: Para. 78; current sensing element, a hall-type current sensor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a Hall sensor (Osada: Para. 78) with a reasonable expectation of success because hall-type current sensor can be the electrically connected between the negative electrode terminal of the battery and the external terminal as a pass through the inside of the current sensing element (Osada: Para. 78).
Regarding claim 19, Dowling and Ferchau don’t explicitly teach wherein the current sensor is a hall-effect sensor.
However Osada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the current sensor is a hall-effect sensor (Osada: Para. 78; current sensing element, a hall-type current sensor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the calculated energy cost per zone (Dowling: Para. 19) with calculation of run time for a set of features based of remaining battery energy (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35) with a Hall sensor (Osada: Para. 78) with a reasonable expectation of success because hall-type current sensor can be the electrically connected between the negative electrode terminal of the battery and the external terminal as a pass through the inside of the current sensing element (Osada: Para. 78).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 1 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s attorney argues that Dowling does not teach “battery monitor physically coupled to a battery, the battery measuring a battery charge in the battery and a processor coupled to the battery monitor.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Dowling teaches controllers communicatively coupled to each of the electric mining vehicles. The controller coupled to the electric mining vehicle receives data of an energy storage profile for each of the energy storage devices installed on an electric mining vehicle that is traversing each of the energy zones (Dowling: Para. 20-21).
The applicant cites Dowling paragraph 21 as “available to be installed.” The applicant’s specification teaches a retrofit kit for coupling to previously manufactured heavy machine (Spec: Para. 57). The applicant’s specification teaches coupling as interacting with the wiring of the vehicle or obtaining the needed information from the interface (Spec: Para. 26).
Dowling teaches a controller that receives data for the energy store device on a vehicle while it is traversing various energy zones (Dowling: Para. 20-21) that reads on the applicant’s specification.
The applicant next argues that Dowling does not teach “determining a change in the battery charge for a duration of the task to provide a task charge.”
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Dowling teaches both historical data and real time data indicative of machine and battery health. The system compares the current to historical values and the results of the comparison are used to estimate energy usage for new sequences of energy zones over a new travel route (Dowling: Para. 27, 39). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the applicant’s claim is getting a final value for the charge usage for a task. The applicant’s specification includes moving between waypoints as a task (Spec: Para. 39). Dowling estimates the charge usage for the task.
The applicant next argues that Ferchau does not teach or suggest determining a number of remaining tasks based on measured task charge
In response to the applicant’s argument above, a task can be the movement in between two waypoints. Ferchau teaches estimating how much energy capacity still available and typical loads for a first responder electric vehicle (Ferchau: Col. 6 Lines 43-45, Col. 7 Lines 59-65). Ferchau teaches knowing the various system and their battery usage over time. The user inputs a run time for the vehicle. If the battery state of charge is lower than the usage needed for all parts of the vehicle for the user insert run time the system turns off various parts such as climate/hvac, laptop, hot water heaters that are not critical to running the vehicle for the user inputted task (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35, Col. 12 Lines 29-31, Table 1). Moving the vehicle is one task, each system to be power are separate tasks, and all possible at the same time. Ferchau teaches a system that determines the number of systems that can be powered with the current battery charge while accomplishing the user entered task. The number of systems remaining that can be powered is an example of determining a number of remaining tasks from the battery charge.
The applicant next argues that for claims 6, 7, 17, and 18, the examiner is not reading these dependent claims considering their respective independent claims.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected by Dowling in view of Ferchau. This means the battery monitor from Dowling that can be retrofit the battery monitor into an existing vehicle (Dowling: Para. 57). That means the battery monitor taught by Dowling can be modified to include the current sensor taught in Ferchau as part of the data collected by for the battery such as: the battery state-of-charge, battery state-of-health, number of battery charge cycles, the voltage of the battery, the amp hours from the battery (Dowling: Para. 43).The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The applicant next argues that for claim 10, Ferchau’s “monitoring power flow” is entirely unrelated to computing instantaneous power from a measured current and a measured voltage.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Ferchau teaches a battery management system for each battery bank that monitors the state of charge and battery health where the SOC can be determined by monitoring power flow (Ferchau: Col. 7 Lines 38-45, 59-63). Both Dowling and Ferchau teaches collecting data about the current battery and using the predicted energy usage (Dowling: Para. 27, 39) or a stored table of SP system loads (Ferchau: Col. 6 Lines 43-45, Table 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect various sensor data from a battery, current, voltage, temperature, power, and others in order to best estimate the battery’s state of charge and calculating how much longer/farther the battery can move the vehicle.
The applicant next argues that for claim 11, Ferchau does not teach or suggest determining a number of remaining tasks based on a plurality of measured task-specific charge values.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, a task can be the movement in between two waypoints. Ferchau teaches estimating how much energy capacity still available and typical loads for a first responder electric vehicle (Ferchau: Col. 6 Lines 43-45, Col. 7 Lines 59-65). Ferchau teaches knowing the various system and their battery usage over time. The user inputs a run time for the vehicle. If the battery state of charge is lower than the usage needed for all parts of the vehicle for the user insert run time the system turns off various parts such as climate/hvac, laptop, hot water heaters that are not critical to running the vehicle for the user inputted task (Ferchau: Col. 11 Lines 18-35, Col. 12 Lines 29-31, Table 1). Moving the vehicle is one task, each system to be power are separate tasks, and all possible at the same time. Ferchau teaches a system that determines the number of systems that can be powered with the current battery charge while accomplishing the user entered task. The number of systems remaining that can be powered is an example of determining a number of remaining tasks from the battery charge.
The applicant next argues that for claim 15, Ferchau does not teach determining a duration of the discrete operational task using a sensor or an input device.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Ferchau teaches the user inputting a desired run time (Ferchau: Col. 12 Lines 3-4). The run time would be a task of movement or operation of a vehicle which reads on the applicant’s tasks. Therefore a user inputting a duration of a task, through the runtime, Ferchau does teach the claimed limitation.
The applicant next argues that for claims 8 and 19, if Dowling and Ferchau were modified to incorporate the current-sensing element from Osada, the resulting system would fail to meet the claimed external battery monitor.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Osada teaches a hall-type current sensor as a current sensing element (Osada: Para. 78). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Dowling’s battery usage planning for various energy zones in view of Ferchau’s know charge per system reads on applicant’s systems and methods for monitoring energy consumption of tasks. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights