DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer filed 10/21/2025 has been entered and acknowledged. Double Patenting rejection of 04/21/2025 has been withdrawn.
Priority
The priority date for the current application has been established as a filing date of the parent Application 12/502,041, now US 9,853,488 B1, 07/13/2009.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 are being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 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 1-4, 6-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutardja (US 2008/0136371 A1) (IDS of 01/18/2025; “5”) in view of Donnelly et al. (US 7,124,691 B2) (IDS of 01/18/2025; “19”) and further in view of Letendre, S.E. and Kempton, W. (Letendre), "The V2G Concept: A New Model for Power?" (IDS of 01/18/2025; “42”).
Claims 1, 6 and 11. Sutardja discloses an electrical charging system for electric vehicles, comprising:
one or more processing devices; and a non-transitory memory device in communication with the one or more processing devices, the non-transitory memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processing devices, [0002]; [0004]; [0208]; [0228]; [0229]; [0231]; [0239]; [0252]; [0243]; [0244], result in:
receiving information indicative of a desired charge level of a battery of the TEC wherein the desired charge level is defined by a user of the TEC [0051]; [0119]; [0243]; [0244]; [0251]; [0253]; [0262]; [0267]; [0270];
via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) forming a part of the TEC [0243]
Sutardja does not specifically teach that said interface is adapted to display a unitary vehicle charge indicator element comprising a combination of input and output GUI components, which is disclosed in Donnelly et al. (Donnelly). Donnelly discloses a touchscreen interface configured to receive various commands from a user, including charging commands, and display a charging status of a battery pack. C. 21, L. 47-58; C. 23, L. 16-20, 31-33; said GUI elements comprising: (i) a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in the battery of the TEC; (ii) a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the TEC. Fig 28, the filled-in portion, which is Battery State of Charge “28004”, and the unfilled portion, which indicates uncharged capacity of the battery; C. 23, L. 16-33;
PNG
media_image1.png
754
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
554
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Donnelly also notes the GUI provided on the touchscreen, may be applied to “vehicle[s] other than locomotives, such as cars” or “trucks.” C. 26, L. 6-8; C.1, L. 36-38 (acknowledging “using energy storage batteries” in hybrid vehicles, such as “automobiles, buses and other highway vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sutardja to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Donnelly, for the benefit of simplifying user interaction with the charging control system by employing a user-friendly interface.
While Sutardja discloses that an amount of charge may be specified [0243], Sutardja, as modified by Donnelly, does not specifically teach that said GUI elements further comprising: (iii) a third portion comprising a slider by which an amount of charge may be specified, which is disclosed in Letendre. Letendre (published 02/15/2002) discloses a user interface for an electric vehicle battery charging arrangement, said interface comprising a slider by which a user specifies a charge level necessary to travel to a desired distance:
PNG
media_image3.png
326
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sutardja to include a slider element, as disclosed in Letendre, for the benefit of allowing the user to select a sufficient charge to drive a desired distance to the desired destination.
Donnelly further teaches:
displaying a charging status of the TEC via the GUI; Donnelly; C. 22, L. 35-38.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sutardja to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Donnelly, for the benefit of providing visual feedback to the user, allowing the user to know whether the battery is charging as expected or if there is some problem preventing charging, such as the power receptacle not being plugged into the supply outlet.
Sutardja further teaches:
increasing, in accordance with the desired charge level, a level of charge of the battery of the TEC; Sutardja; [0267]; [0269]; [0270]
wherein the desired charge level of the battery represents a specific amount of charge desired to reside in the battery after increasing the level of charge. Sutardja; [0051]; [0119]; [0270]
Claims 2, 7 and 12. The electrical charging system of claim 1, wherein executing the instructions by the one or more processing devices further results in: determining, based at least on the desired charge level, a charging schedule for the TEC. Sutardja; [0253]; [0116]; [0122]; [0191]; [0253]; [0263]
Claims 3, 8 and 13. The electrical charging system of claim 2, wherein the increasing of the level of charge is performed in accordance with the charging schedule. Sutardja; [0263]
Claims 4, 9 and 14. The electrical charging system of claim 1, wherein the first portion operates to output the amount of charge residing in the battery, the second portion operates to output the uncharged capacity of the battery and the third portion is an input GUI component. Same rationale as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11.
Claims 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutardja in view of Donnelly, further in view of Letendre, and further in view of Seelig (US 5,654,621) (IDS of 01/18/2025; “6”).
Claims 5, 10 and 15. The electrical charging system of claim 1, wherein the increasing of the level of charge of the battery of the TEC, comprises: transmitting a control signal to a parking space charge device that starts a charging, in accordance with the charging schedule, of the TEC. [0239]; [0116]; [0122]; [0191]; [0253]; [0263].
Sutardja teaches that a vehicle is charged at a location such as a home or work location, the location may include the supply outlet 20 that may receive power from the utility company 23 via the power distribution line 21. [0239]; [0240]. Because home and work locations include parking areas, such as garages, carports, driveways, and/or parking lots, Sutardja at least suggests that the car is parked or is in a parking space during charging process.
Sutardja also teaches wherein the increasing of the level of charge of the battery of the electric vehicle, comprises: transmitting a control signal...that starts a charging, in accordance with the charging schedule, of the electric vehicle. [0116]; [0122]; [0191]; [0253]; [0263].
Seelig discloses a method for charging an electric vehicle at a parking location, comprising transmitting a control signal to a parking space charge device that starts a charging of the vehicle. (the vehicle sending a charging initiation signal to switch on the inverter) Fig. 1; C. 2, L. 19-23, 42-44; C. 6, L. 29-32
PNG
media_image4.png
604
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sutardja to include the wireless charging system, as disclosed in Seelig, because there would have been no need for the user to plug the vehicle into the power supply, and there would be less opportunity for human error preventing charging due to the user forgetting to plug the vehicle in.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutardja in view of Donnelly, further in view of Letendre, and further in view of Knockeart et al. (US 6,622,083 B1) (IDS of 01/18/2025; “15”).
Claim 16. The electrical charging system of claim 11, wherein the GUI forms a part of a mobile display device.
While Sutardja discloses a GUI [0243], Sutardja does not specifically teach that said GUI forms a part of a mobile display device, which is disclosed in Knockeart et al. (Knockeart) Fig. 7; C. 7, L. 43-67
PNG
media_image5.png
562
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sutardja to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Knockeart, because it would advantageously allow a user to view charging information (e.g., charge level, charging preferences) when they are away from the vehicle.
Claim 17. The electrical charging system of claim 16, wherein the mobile display device is a smartphone.
Knockeart teaches that the mobile display device may be a “cellular telephone”
or “personal digital assistant” (PDA), such as Palm Computer made by Palm, Inc.
Knockeart at C. 6, L. 39-48, C. 12, L. 38-41. Thus, Knockeart describes an “application executing on the removable personal device” and providing a “software communication interface to the on-board computer” as well as the removable device being a cellular phone, thereby at least suggesting a smartphone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sutardja to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Knockeart, because it would advantageously allow a user to view charging information (e.g., charge level, charging preferences) when they are away from the vehicle.
Form PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Austin – US 2011/0175569 A1 – discloses an electric vehicle battery charging system comprising a charger having a display (Figs. 5-9) depicting a charging status of a battery 60 (a vehicle charge indicator element) comprising a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a battery of the vehicle, i.e. 0-31% Fig. 7 or 0-91% Fig. 8, and a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery, i.e. 31-100% Fig. 7 or 91-100% Fig. 8; said charger is adapted to receive an amount of charge specified/desired by the user, i.e. 30%, via charge level buttons 112. Fig. 10; [0081]; [0099].
PNG
media_image6.png
1061
778
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1180
816
media_image7.png
Greyscale
said charger is adapted to communicate (via the controller 44, Fig. 15) with a utility computer, and with a user's computer, such as a mobile phone. [0068]; [0069]; [0072]. Austin discloses that any other manner of changing and selecting a desired minimum level of battery charge can be used as desired, such as via drop down or pull-up menus displaying various levels of battery charge [0099]; said vehicle charge indicator element can include any number and arrangement of the indicators, selectors, and other information described herein. [0083]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest: a unitary vehicle charge indicator element comprising: (i) a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in the battery of the TEC; (ii) a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the TEC; and (iii) a third portion comprising a slider by which an amount of charge may be specified.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains, that Donnelly teaches that said GUI is adapted to receive and display a vehicle charge indicator element comprising a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a battery of the TEC (Fig 28, the filled-in portion, which is Battery State of Charge “28004”), and a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the TEC (the unfilled portion, which indicates uncharged capacity of the battery; C. 23, L. 16-33); C. 21, L. 47-58; C. 23, L. 16-20, 31-33, and Letendre discloses a user interface for an electric vehicle battery charging arrangement, said interface comprising a slider by which a user specifies a charge level necessary to travel to a desired distance:
PNG
media_image3.png
326
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a “desired charge level” is different than an “amount of charge”, the Examiner notes that the Specification [0096] describes that a user may specify an amount of charge by specifying a desired travel distance as follows: “the user may indicate a desired charging level (and/or a desired charging level may be automatically calculated) based on a desired distance of travel.” Therefore, “amount of charge” may also refer to a desired mileage.
In response to Applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the motivation to combine Ferro and Donnelly would be the benefit of simplifying user interaction with the charging control system by employing a user-friendly interface. And motivation to combine Ferro and Letendre would be the benefit of allowing the user to select a sufficient charge to drive a desired distance to the desired destination.
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.
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 11/19/2025