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 10/14/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-30 5are currently pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer filed 10/20/2025 has been entered and acknowledged. Double Patenting rejection of 05/12/2025 has been withdrawn.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, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro et al. (US 2009/0313034 A1) (IDS of 01/14/2025; “19”) in view of Oyobe et al. (US 2009/0242288 A1) (IDS of 01/14/2025; “1”); further 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 and 8. Ferro et al. (Ferro) discloses an electrical charging system for a True Electric Car (TEC), comprising:
an arrangement to sense TEC; [0035]; [0037]; [0076]; [0109]; [0121]
Ferro does not explicitly teach a vehicle sensor, which is disclosed in Oyobe et al. (Oyobe) Fig. 16. “108”; [0158];
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modify Ferro to include the vehicle sensor, as disclosed in Oyobe, for the benefit of providing by the vehicle “an intention to charge” without operator intervention, as specifically stated in Ferro, [0109], and for the benefit of making the user aware the vehicle is parked at charging equipment, even if the user does not know initially.
Ferro, as modified by Oyobe, further teaches:
a communication device; Ferro; Fig. 2; [0040]; [0042]; [0049]; [0076]; [0106]; [0039]
a processor, Ferro; Fig. 2; “204”, “206”, in communication with the vehicle sensor and the communication device; Oyobe; Fig. 16. “108”; [0158], and a memory in communication with the processor, Ferro; Fig. 2; “204”, “206”, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
receive, from the vehicle sensor, information indicative of a presence of the TEC in a parking space; Oyobe; [0158]; [0159]
receive, from the communication device, information indicative of one or more charging preferences corresponding to a desired charging of the TEC, Ferro; Fig. 4, “406”; Fig. 5, “502”; [0082]; [0084]; [0118]; [0120]; [0122]-[0124], wherein the one or more charging preferences are defined by an operator of the TEC; Ferro; [0080]; [0083]; [0084]; [0093];
determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and at least one current value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider, a charging schedule for the TEC; Ferro; Figs. 4 and 8; [0051]; [0076]; [0079]; [0088]; [0098]; [0101]; [0102]; [0110]; [0112]; [0113]; [0115]; [0136]; [0143]; Fig. 9, “914”; [0142]; [0143]
Ferro, as modified, further teaches:
transmit a control signal to a parking space charge device that starts a charging, in accordance with the charging schedule, the TEC; Ferro; [0035]; [0036]; [0051]; [0060]; [0063]; [0109]; [0110]; [0113]; [0115]; [0121]; [0136]-[0140]
wherein at least one of the one or more charging preferences is defined by user input, Ferro; [0093]; [0084]; [0110]; [0113]; [0123]; [0136]; [0137]; [0143]; [0162].
While Ferro discloses an input/output device, e.g. a keyboard, a mouse, a display, etc., Ferro does not explicitly teach a graphical user interface (GUI), which is disclosed in Donnelly et al. (Donnelly) Figs. 25 and 28 (the GUI 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”)
Donnelly further 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
PNG
media_image1.png
754
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
554
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ferro 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.
Ferro, as modified by Oyobe and Donnelly, does not specifically teach: wherein the vehicle charge indicator element further comprises 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 Ferro 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.
Claims 2 and 9. The electrical charging system of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface is adapted to display a web page. Ferro; (wireless connection to remote devices and servers over the Internet) [0042]; [0039]; [0027]; [0064]; [0091]; [0083]; [0106]; Letendre teaches an auto charge control panel, may be “on a Web page.” P. 19-20. The motivation to combine would be the benefit of the use of webpage for entering or managing the preferences to standardize the preference interface for all participants regardless what device they use for entering the preferences. Ferro; [0080]; [0083]; [0084] Same rationale to combine as applied to claims 1 and 10.
Claims 3 and 10. The electrical charging system of claim 2, wherein the graphical user interface forms a part of the TEC. Ferro; [0106]
Claims 4 and 11. The electrical charging system of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface is adapted to receive a maintenance notification. Donnelly; Fig. 25; “25006”; Fig. 34; “Warnings” Screen, “34007”; C. 25, L. 4-5, 12-16; Same rationale to combine as applied to claims 1 and 10.
Claims 6 and 13. The electrical charging system of claim 1, wherein the determining of the charging schedule for the TEC is further based upon a factor of safety parameter Ferro; (the transaction plan (1.¢e., charging schedule) is generated by the energy transaction planner 402 using the principal-entered charging preferences, including the maximum and minimum amount of charge); Letendre; “always maintain” mileage input, and a distance (in miles) the vehicle battery should “always maintain enough charge”’ for.
PNG
media_image3.png
326
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 14. The electrical charging system of claim 6, wherein the one or more charging preferences comprise the factor of safety parameter. Letendre; “always maintain” mileage input, and a distance (in miles) the vehicle battery should “always maintain enough charge” for. Same rationale to combine as applied to claims 1 and 10.
Claim 15. An electrical charging system for a True Electric Car (TEC), comprising:
a vehicle sensor; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
a communication device; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
a processor in communication with the vehicle sensor and the communication device; and a memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
(a) receive, from the vehicle sensor, information indicative of a presence of the TEC in a parking space; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
(b) receive, from the communication device, information indicative of one or more charging preferences corresponding to a desired charging of the TEC, wherein the one or more charging preferences are defined by an operator of the TEC; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
(c) determine a first value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
(d) determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and the first value of the dynamic attribute, a charging schedule for the TEC; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
(e) transmit a control signal to a parking space charge device that starts a charging of the TEC in accordance with the charging schedule; Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
(f) retrieve a second value of the at least one dynamic attribute; Ferro; (continuously updating the cost of electricity to retrieve a second value of the at least one dynamic attribute) Fig. 12; [0112]; [0113]; [0116]; [0117]; [0149]; and
(g) repeat (d) and (e), utilizing the retrieved second value of the dynamic attribute as the first value of the dynamic attribute; Ferro; (creating an updated dynamic energy transaction plan 438 having a second set of terms) [0114]; [0073]-[0076]; [0148]-[0150].
wherein at least one of the one or more charging preferences is defined by user input received via a graphical user interface adapted to display a unitary vehicle charge indicator element comprising: (i) a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a 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. Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claim 16. The electrical charging system of claim 15, wherein the graphical user interface is adapted to display a web page. Same rationale as applied to claim 2
Claim 17. The electrical charging system of claim 16, wherein the graphical user interface forms a part of the TEC. Same rationale as applied to claim 3
Claim 18. The electrical charging system of claim 15, wherein the graphical user interface is adapted to receive a maintenance notification. Same rationale as applied to claim 4
Claim 20. The electrical charging system of claim 15, wherein the charging schedule for the TEC is further based upon a factor of safety parameter. Same rationale as applied to claim 6
Claim 21. The electrical charging system of claim 20, wherein the one or more charging preferences comprise the factor of safety parameter. Same rationale as applied to claim 7
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro in view of Oyobe, further 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”).
Claims 5, 12 and 19. Ferro does not specifically teach wherein the graphical user interface forms a part of a smartphone, which is disclosed or suggested in Knockeart et al. (Knockeart) Abstract, C. 4, L. 32-41; C. 5, L. 52-65; C. 6, L. 29-31. Specifically, 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 Ferro 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.
Claims 22-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro in view of Donnelly and further in view of Letendre.
Claim 22. Ferro discloses an electrical charging system for a True Electric Car (TEC), comprising:
a communication device; Ferro; Fig. 2; [0040]; [0042]; [0049]; [0076]; [0106]; [0039]
a processor in communication with the communication device and a memory in communication with the processor, Ferro; Fig. 2; “204”, “206”, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
receive, from the communication device, information indicative of one or more charging preferences corresponding to a desired charging of the TEC, Ferro; Fig. 4, “406”; Fig. 5, “502”; [0082]; [0084]; [0118]; [0120]; [0122]-[0124],
wherein the one or more charging preferences are defined by the operator of the TEC Ferro; [0080]; [0083]; [0084]; [0093]; and include an indication of the desired charge parameters of the TEC; Ferro; [0080]; [0083]; [0084]; [0093];
While Ferro discloses an input/output device, e.g. a keyboard, a mouse, a display, etc., Ferro does not explicitly teach a graphical user interface (GUI), which is disclosed in Donnelly et al. (Donnelly) Figs. 25 and 28 (the GUI 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”)
Donnelly further teaches that said GUI is adapted to display a unitary 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”)((i) a graphical depiction of a TEC battery capacity), 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 ((ii) a graphical depiction of a current charge level of the TEC battery)
PNG
media_image1.png
754
964
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
554
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ferro 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.
Ferro, as modified by Donnelly, does not specifically teach: (iii) a graphical input slider element that permits an operator of the TEC to provide input defining a desired charge parameter of the TEC, which is disclosed in Letendre. 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
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ferro 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.
Ferro further teaches:
determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and at least one current value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider, a charging schedule for the TEC; Ferro; Figs. 4 and 8; [0051]; [0076]; [0079]; [0088]; [0098]; [0101]; [0102]; [0110]; [0112]; [0113]; [0115]; [0136]; [0143]; Fig. 9, “914”; [0142]; [0143]
transmit a control signal to a parking space charge device that starts a charging, in accordance with the charging schedule, of the TEC. Ferro; [0035]; [0036]; [0051]; [0060]; [0063]; [0109]; [0110]; [0113]; [0115]; [0121]; [0136]-[0140]
Claim 23. The electrical charging system of claim 22, wherein the desired charge parameter comprises a desired charge limit for the TEC. Ferro; Fig. 4, “406”; Fig. 5, “502”; [0082]; [0084]; [0118]; [0120]; [0122]-[0124]; 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
Same rationale to combine the references as applied in claim 23.
Claim 24. The electrical charging system of claim 22, wherein the desired charge parameter comprises a time parameter governing charging of the TEC. Ferro; Fig. 4, “406”; Fig. 5, “502”, “512”; [0122]; [0126]; [0127].
Claim 25. The electrical charging system of claim 22, wherein the user interface is adapted to display a web page. Ferro; (wireless connection to remote devices and servers over the Internet) [0042]; [0039]; [0027]; [0064]; [0091]; [0083]; [0106]; Letendre teaches an auto charge control panel, may be “on a Web page.” P. 19-20. The motivation to combine would be the benefit of the use of webpage for entering or managing the preferences to standardize the preference interface for all participants regardless what device they use for entering the preferences. Ferro; [0080]; [0083]; [0084] Same rationale to combine as applied to claims 1 and 10.
Claim 26. The electrical charging system of claim 25, wherein the user interface forms a part of the TEC. Ferro; Fig. 4, “432”; [0106]
Claim 27. The electrical charging system of claim 22, wherein the user interface is adapted to receive a maintenance notification. Donnelly; Fig. 25; “25006”; Fig. 34; “Warnings” Screen, “34007”; C. 25, L. 4-5, 12-16; Same rationale to combine as applied to claim 22.
Claim 29. The electrical charging system of claim 22, wherein the charging schedule for the TEC is further based upon a factor of safety parameter. Ferro; (the transaction plan (1.¢e., charging schedule) is generated by the energy transaction planner 402 using the principal-entered charging preferences, including the maximum and minimum amount of charge); Letendre; “always maintain” mileage input, and a distance (in miles) the vehicle battery should “always maintain enough charge”’ for.
PNG
media_image3.png
326
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 30. The electrical charging system of claim 29, wherein the one or more charging preferences comprise the factor of safety parameter. Letendre; “always maintain” mileage input, and a distance (in miles) the vehicle battery should “always maintain enough charge” for. Same rationale to combine as applied to claim 22.
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro in view of Donnelly, further in view of Letendre, and further in view of Knockeart.
Claim 28. Ferro does not specifically teach, wherein the user interface forms a part of a smartphone, which is disclosed or suggested in Knockeart. Abstract, C. 4, L. 32-41; C. 5, L. 52-65; C. 6, L. 29-31. Specifically, 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 Ferro 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_image4.png
1061
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1180
816
media_image5.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 10/14/2025 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 a 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
Further, 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.
Applicant argues that the references fail to teach or suggest: wherein the determining of the charging schedule for the TEC is further based upon a factor of safety parameter OR wherein the one or more charging preferences comprise the factor of safety parameter.
The Examiner points out that Ferro discloses that the transaction plan (1.¢e., charging schedule) is generated by the energy transaction planner 402 using the principal-entered charging preferences, including the maximum and minimum amount of charge, and Letendre discloses “always maintain” mileage input, and a distance (in miles) the vehicle battery should “always maintain enough charge”’ for, which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, discloses the recited limitations. As per the Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the “automatically scaling down the desired value” features upon which applicant relies in claims 6 and 7 is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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