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 09/26/2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 9 and 13 have been amended. New claims 18-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer filed 09/26/2025 has been entered and acknowledged. Double Patenting rejection of 03/27/2025 has been withdrawn.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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2025 is being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 13, as currently amended, recite: (emphasis added):
“sending an alert to an operator of the TEC indicative of an approach of an end of the selected mode of operation.”
However, the Specification does not provide support for the recited limitations. The Specification discloses:
[0066] In some embodiments, the system 600 may be utilized to setup, define, store, and/or update or change preference, option, and/or parameter data that is utilized by an ECS (not shown in FIG. 6) to determine how, when, and/or where to transfer electrical energy to and/or from the vehicle 660. An operator of the user device 680 may, for example, select the menu option 682 (and the user device 680 may receive an indication of such selection), which is depicted as being a menu option defining a situation of a pet being in the vehicle 660. The operator may then, for example, (i) determine whether it is desired that the vehicle 660 only be allowed to be charged in such a circumstance—as opposed to allowing the vehicle 660 to provide and/or sell stored and/or vehicle-generated power (e.g., the first preference option 684a), (ii) determine whether it is desired that the operator be notified if the current charge level of the vehicle 660 falls below a level that allows the Air Conditioning (A/C) to remain on for fifteen (15) minutes (e.g., the second preference option 684b), and/or (iii) determine whether it is desired that the operator be notified if the temperature inside the vehicle 660 climbs above seventy (70) degrees (e.g., the third preference option 684c).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
[0075] In some embodiments, the “main” menu item 706 may comprise a factor of safety field 726 via which the user may set a factor of safety to be utilized in calculations regarding charging levels and schedules for the vehicle. The “main” menu item 706 may also or alternatively comprise contact information 728 for the user. The contact information 728 may be utilized by the interface 700 (and/or an ECS), for example, to send alerts and/or messages to the user and/or other designated parties. The “main” menu item 706 may comprise, for example, an alerts field 730 that allows the use to specify various conditions and/or events that may trigger alerts and/or actions with respect to the vehicle. The user may turn “All Alerts On”, for example, and/or may individually activate (i) charge thresholds (e.g., minimum, maximum, and/or desired charge thresholds), (ii) rate thresholds (e.g., minimum, maximum, and/or desired rate thresholds), (iii) internal temperature thresholds e.g., minimum, maximum, and/or desired temperature thresholds), and/or (iv) vehicle diagnostics (e.g., poor battery health, low oil, low tire pressure, alarm conditions, and/or maintenance reminders).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, while the Specification discloses providing status of the selected mode of operation, the Specification does not disclose the “approach of an end” concept.
Amended claims which introduce new elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972).
When an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation." Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). In this case, an alerts field 730 allows to specify various conditions and/or events that may trigger alerts and/or actions with respect to the vehicle, such as (i) charge thresholds, (ii) rate, (iii) internal temperature thresholds and/or (iv) vehicle diagnostics, and the written description cannot be said to require sending an alert to an operator of the TEC indicative of an approach of an end of the selected mode of operation, since it is silent on the matter.
Examiner agrees that such concept is well known to one skilled in the art. However, the lack of support is not cured simply because one skilled in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention or found it obvious to modify the system in such a manner. If it would be possible, anything could be added to the claims without violating the written description requirement. No limitations from the Specification would have been read into the claim for the purposes of determining support under § 112. “What may or may not be obvious is not the test.” Lockwood vs. Anderson, 41USPQ 2d @ 1966. Therefore, the recited newly introduced limitations constitute new matter.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhard et al. (US 2009/0143929 A1) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “16”) in view of Austin (US 2011/0175569 A1), further in view of Donnelly et al. (US 7,124,691 B2) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “19”), further in view of Letendre, S.E. and Kempton, W. (Letendre), "The V2G Concept: A New Model for Power?" (IDS of 01/17/2025; “42”), further in view of Umebayashi et al. (US 7,055,340 B2) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “18”), further in view of Hibi (JPH1055496) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “5”) and further in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 2008/0312782 A1) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “9”)
Claims 1 and 9. Eberhard et al. (Eberhard) discloses a computer-implemented system, configured to:
retrieve from a memory storage device one or more electric charge parameters describing one or more electric charge parameters of a True Electric Car (TEC); Figs. 6-8; [0008]; [0017] – [0025]; [0049]; [0057]
display via a user interface of a mobile device at least one of the one or more electric charge parameters as a vehicle charge indicator element, wherein the user interface is adapted to display the one or more electric charge parameters; Figs. 5-8;
receive an amount of charge selected by the user via the user interface; Figs. 5-9; [0049]; [0057]
commence charging of the TEC in accordance with the received amount of charge; Figs. 5-9; [0026] – [0030]
Eberhard further teaches that said user interface (display system) may be used either “alone with a touch-sensitive screen, or together with a plurality of switching means (e.g., toggle switches, push button switches, slide switches, etc.), and is configured for monitoring the state of charge, thereby indicating an approach of an end of the selected mode of operation [0049]
Eberhard does not specifically teach that said vehicle charge indicator element comprises a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a battery of the TEC and a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the TEC and wherein the vehicle charge indicator element further comprises a slider by which an amount of charge may be specified.
Austin 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
PNG
media_image3.png
1061
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1180
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Austin further discloses:
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].
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]
providing an indication of an approach of an end of the selected charging mode of operation. Figs. 6-7, “66” charge time remaining; [0011]; [0080]; [0095]
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. Also, a battery status, Fig. 25, “25014”; C. 22, L. 45-46. Thus, displaying of the charged and uncharged capacity portions on the display during a charging operation provides an indication of an approach of an end of the selected charging mode of operation.
PNG
media_image5.png
754
964
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
554
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Austin and Donnelly, for the benefit of simplifying user interaction with the charging control system by employing a user-friendly interface.
While Eberhard, Austin and Eberhard do not specifically teach a slider by which an amount of charge may be specified, Austin discloses that any other manner of changing and selecting a desired minimum level of battery charge can be used as desired, including without limitation drop down or pull-up menus displaying various levels of battery charge that can be selected [0099], and said vehicle charge indicator element can include any number and arrangement of the indicators, selectors, and other information described herein. [0083]
Letendre published 02/15/202 discloses a user interface for an electric vehicle battery charging arrangement, said interface comprising a slider by which a user specifies a desired charge level of the battery:
PNG
media_image7.png
326
675
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard to include charge indicator element comprising a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a battery of the TEC and a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the TEC, as disclosed in Austin and/or Roadster Manual, because it would advantageously allow the user to quickly realize – at a glance - the charging status of the battery. And it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard 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.
Further, Umebayashi et al. (Umebayashi) discloses:
display via the user interface a visual indicia for selecting a mode of operation of the TEC the selected mode of operation operating to determine and maintain an interior temperature of the TEC suitable for a passenger located within the TEC; Abstract; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35;
receive an indication from an operator of the TEC of an activation of the selected mode of operation of the TEC; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35; Fig. 3
operate a climate control mechanism of the TEC while the TEC is in a parked state and in accordance with the selected mode of operation for a duration of time until the amount of charge residing in the battery reaches a predetermined level; Fig. 3; “508” or “511” and “514”
send an alert (notifying) to an operator of the TEC indicative of an approach of an end of the selected mode of operation. Fig. 3; “505”, “514”; C. 5, L. 53-64; C. 6, L. 37-60; Fig. 25, “25014”; C. 22, L. 45-46.
Umebayashi does not specifically teach that said mode suitable for the passenger includes a pet-safe mode, which is disclosed in Hibi Fig 11; [0007]; [0010]; [0038]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard to include the recited limitations, for the benefit of keeping the interior temperature of the vehicle at a desired level in a very hot or very cold weather season.
Also, Berdichevsky et al. (Berdichevsky) teaches:
send an alert to the operator of the TEC indicative of the charge residing in the battery having reached the predetermined level. [0008]; [0009]; [0029].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Berdichevsky, because it would advantageously allow the user to maintain the proper state of charge of the battery, and hence, the ability of the electric vehicle to travel a predetermined distance of miles, as specifically stated in Berdichevsky. [0005].
Claim 2. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: receive, in response to the alert and from the operator of the TEC, an instruction defining an attribute of the selected mode of operation of the TEC; and operate the climate control mechanism of the TEC in accordance with the received instruction. Berdichevsky; [0008]; [0009]; [0029]; Umebayashi; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35; Fig. 3; “514”. Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claims 3 and 10. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the mobile device comprises a Smartphone. Eberhard; Umebayashi. Same motivation as applied to claim 1.
Claim 4. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the amount of charge is displayed as a distance of travel. Letendre,
PNG
media_image8.png
238
652
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claim 5. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is adapted to display a webpage. Eberhard; [0057];
Claim 6. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the user interface is adapted to enable a selection of a future time at which charging of the TEC is to be performed wherein the selection is stored on the memory storage device. Austin; Fig. 10; [0071]; [0086]; [0087] Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claim 7. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the TEC is charged, at least in part, via inductive charging. Austin; [0038]; [0039]. Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claim 8. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the mobile device comprises a touch screen display of the TEC. Eberhard; Figs. 5 and 6; [0008]; [0056] Same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Claims 11, 12, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhard in view of Austin, further in view of Donnelly, further in view of Letendre, further in view of Umebayashi, further in view of Hibi, further in view of Berdichevsky and further in view of Evans et al. (US 2009/0144622 A1) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “17”).
Claim 11. Eberhard does not specifically teach, wherein the displaying of the indication of the status of the selected mode of operation of the TEC comprises outputting an image representing a pet, which is disclosed in Evans et al. (Evans) (a touch-screen interface configured to present messages including an interactive character, such as an animal) [0034]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Evans, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 12. The method of claim 11, wherein the interface is output via a display screen of the TEC. Evans; Fig. 5. Same rationale as applied to claim 11.
Claims 19 and 20. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processor is further caused to: display via the user interface, and during the operating, an indication of a status of the selected mode of operation of the TEC, wherein the indication comprises an image representing a pet and a notification that a pet is in the TEC. Evans; (generating notifications for predetermined users, wherein said notifications may include an interactive cartoon character, such as an animal) [0028]; [0034]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Eberhard to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Evans, for the benefit of simplifying user interaction with the charging control system by employing a user-friendly interface, and avoiding confusion with other modes of operations settings not suitable for a pet located in the car.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi in view of Austin and further in view of Galvez-Ramos (US 2009/0130965 A1) (IDS of 01/17/2025; “14”) and further in view of Evans.
Claim 13. Umebayashi discloses:
receiving, via a user interface, a request to active a passenger comfortable mode of the TEC, wherein the passenger comfortable mode of operation of the TEC is defined by a stored temperature at which the A/C is to be set to maintain the interior of the TEC while the TEC remains in a parked state; Abstract; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35; Fig. 3
operating, by utilizing electrical energy stored in a travel battery of the TEC, an A/C mechanism of the TEC in accordance with the selected passenger comfortable mode of operation for a duration of time until it is determined that the amount of charge residing in the travel battery has reached a predetermined level; Fig. 3; “508” or “511” and “514”
displaying via the user interface, and during the operating, an indication of a status of the selected passenger comfortable mode of operation of the TEC; Fig. 3;
send an alert (notifying) to an operator of the TEC indicative of an approach of an end of the selected mode of operation. Fig. 3; “505”, “514”; C. 5, L. 53-64; C. 6, L. 37-60
Further, Austin further discloses:
providing an indication of an approach of an end of the selected mode of operation. Figs. 6-7, “66” charge time remaining; [0011]; [0080]; [0095]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Umebayashi to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Austin, for the benefit of simplifying user interaction with the charging control system by employing a user-friendly interface.
Umebayashi does not specifically teach that said passenger comfortable mode includes a pet-safe mode, which is disclosed in Galvez-Ramos. [0026]; [0029]; [0036]; [0037]; [0042]-[0044]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Umebayashi to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Galvez-Ramos, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Umebayashi does not specifically teach that said passenger comfortable mode includes a pet-safe mode, and that said displayed indication comprises an image representing a pet, which is disclosed in Evans. (a touch-screen interface configured to present messages including an interactive character, such as an animal) [0034]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Umebayashi to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Evans, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the user interface is output via a Smartphone. Umebayashi; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35
Claim 15. The method of claim 13, wherein the interface is output via a display screen of the TEC. Evans; Fig. 5. Same rationale as applied to claim 13.
Claim 16. The method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, in response to the alert and from the operator of the TEC, an instruction defining an attribute of the operation of the A/C mechanism of the TEC. Umebayashi; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35
Claim 17. The method of claim 16, further comprising: operating the A/C mechanism of the TEC in accordance with the received instruction. Umebayashi; C. 2, L. 49-67; C. 3, L. 1-35
Claim 18. The method of claim 13, wherein the displaying via the user interface of the indication of the status of the selected pet-safe mode of operation of the TEC further comprises a notification that a pet is in the TEC. Evans; (generating notifications for predetermined users, wherein said notifications may include an interactive cartoon character, such as an animal) [0028]; [0034] Same rationale as applied to claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest: a vehicle charge indicator element comprising a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a battery of the TEC and a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the TEC and wherein the vehicle charge indicator element further comprises 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_image7.png
326
675
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest csending an alert to an operator of the TEC indicative of an approach of an end of the selected [pet-safe] mode of operation.
The Examiner notes that the Specification does not provide support for the recited limitations. The Specification discloses:
[0066] In some embodiments, the system 600 may be utilized to setup, define, store, and/or update or change preference, option, and/or parameter data that is utilized by an ECS (not shown in FIG. 6) to determine how, when, and/or where to transfer electrical energy to and/or from the vehicle 660. An operator of the user device 680 may, for example, select the menu option 682 (and the user device 680 may receive an indication of such selection), which is depicted as being a menu option defining a situation of a pet being in the vehicle 660. The operator may then, for example, (i) determine whether it is desired that the vehicle 660 only be allowed to be charged in such a circumstance—as opposed to allowing the vehicle 660 to provide and/or sell stored and/or vehicle-generated power (e.g., the first preference option 684a), (ii) determine whether it is desired that the operator be notified if the current charge level of the vehicle 660 falls below a level that allows the Air Conditioning (A/C) to remain on for fifteen (15) minutes (e.g., the second preference option 684b), and/or (iii) determine whether it is desired that the operator be notified if the temperature inside the vehicle 660 climbs above seventy (70) degrees (e.g., the third preference option 684c).
Nonetheless, Austin discloses providing an indication of an approach of an end of the selected charging mode of operation. Figs. 6-7, “66” charge time remaining; [0011]; [0080]; [0095]
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
The prior art search has been conducted, with no significant prior art found.
Due to the Applicant argument regarding applicability of Tesla, the Examiner introduced Donnelly reference, and, as such, the current Office action is non-final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Igor Borissov whose telephone number is 571-272-6801. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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).
/IGOR N BORISSOV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 11/21/2025