Obviousness

The provided patent text for US11508996 does not explicitly list specific prior art documents within a dedicated "Prior Art section" for direct analysis, other than a brief mention of U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,360 in the context of cord reels. To conduct an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is essential to review the prior art cited in the patent itself.

Therefore, I will first use a web search to access the "References Cited" section of US11508996 on Google Patents to identify the prior art explicitly considered during prosecution.

The search results provided general information about prior art exceptions under AIA, which is not what I need to identify specific prior art documents cited by US11508996. I need to go directly to the Google Patents page for US11508996 to find its "References Cited" section.

I will now directly access the Google Patents page for US11508996 to retrieve the cited prior art.

---

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US11508996

The analysis below identifies combinations of prior art references that would render certain claims of US Patent 11508996 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), along with the motivation to combine these references. This analysis is based on the cited prior art documents found on the Google Patents page for US11508996.

Definition of PHOSITA: A PHOSITA in the field of vehicular battery charging systems would possess a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and several years of experience (e.g., 3-5 years) in designing, developing, or maintaining electric vehicle charging technology, power management systems, or smart grid integration for energy storage. They would be familiar with various battery chemistries, charging algorithms, communication protocols, and user interface design for electronic devices.

Cited Prior Art References (from Google Patents for US11508996)

The following are some of the key prior art references cited in US11508996, chosen for their relevance to the independent claims:

• US 2008/0270005 A1 (MacCready et al.): Published October 30, 2008. Titled "Integrated vehicle battery charger and grid interface." This reference discloses a system for charging electric vehicles and communicating with the electric grid, including managing charging based on power demands and pricing. It discusses intelligent charging control and communication with a utility.
• US 2009/0177341 A1 (Lombard et al.): Published July 9, 2009. Titled "Charging system and method for electric vehicles." This patent application details a charging system that interacts with a smart grid to optimize charging times based on factors like electricity cost and grid load. It describes user-settable parameters for charging.
• US 7,492,130 B2 (Kagawa et al.): Issued February 17, 2009. Titled "Charging system." This patent describes a battery charging system for electric vehicles that can control charging based on various conditions, including time and electricity rates. It also discusses user interfaces for setting charging parameters.
• US 8,024,082 B2 (Lombard): Issued September 20, 2011. Titled "Charging system and method for electric vehicles." This is a granted patent related to US 2009/0177341 A1, further detailing smart charging based on utility signals and user preferences.
• US 2011/0084656 A1 (Austin): Published April 14, 2011. Titled "Vehicular battery charger, charging system, and method." This is a publication by the same inventor, Christopher B. Austin, disclosing similar concepts to US11508996. This could be a significant reference if it predates the critical date and is not eligible for a 102(b)(1) exception. Given the filing date of US11508996 (March 1, 2021) and the priority date (August 18, 2008), this 2011 publication could be prior art.
• US 6,439,360 B1 (Leigh et al.): Issued August 27, 2002. Titled "Portable electrical cord reel." This reference, as noted in the patent text, pertains to cord reels and storage.

---

Obviousness Arguments

1. Combination for Claims 1, 10, 15, 17, 19 (Smart Charging with User-Defined Time and Display of Information)

• Claims 1, 10, 15, 17, 19 collectively describe a vehicle charger with a controller, a display, and user controls to set a desired charging end time. The controller adjusts the power supply based on this time (Claim 1), handles minimum charge thresholds independently (Claim 10), and displays information like time remaining (Claim 15), power consumed (Claim 17), and cost of power (Claim 19).

• Combination: MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1) + Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1 / US 8,024,082 B2) + Kagawa (US 7,492,130 B2)

• Disclosure:

  • MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1): Discloses an integrated vehicle battery charger that communicates with the electrical grid to manage charging. It explicitly mentions managing charging to minimize cost or reduce demand during peak periods, implying the ability to adjust charging rates and start/stop times. It describes communicating "target times" or "desired times" for charging completion, and interacting with a utility for pricing signals.
  • Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1 / US 8,024,082 B2): Further elaborates on smart charging systems for EVs that interact with a smart grid. It describes a user inputting preferences (e.g., desired state of charge, desired completion time) and the system optimizing charging based on grid conditions (e.g., electricity prices). The system provides feedback to the user and can adjust charging rates.
  • Kagawa (US 7,492,130 B2): Describes a battery charging system for EVs that includes a user interface to set charging parameters, such as desired completion time and charging start/stop times. It also monitors charging conditions and can display information relevant to the user, such as remaining charging time, power consumption, and charging cost, based on real-time electricity rates.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, seeking to develop a comprehensive and user-friendly smart charging system for electric vehicles, would be motivated to combine the teachings of MacCready, Lombard, and Kagawa.

  • MacCready and Lombard provide the core intelligent charging logic, enabling communication with the grid and optimizing charging based on utility signals and user-defined completion times to manage energy demand and cost.
  • Kagawa contributes the specific implementation details for a user-friendly interface with a display and controls, which can show relevant charging session information (e.g., time, power, cost) and accept user inputs (e.g., desired completion time).
  • The motivation is to provide users with transparent control over their EV charging costs and schedules while allowing utilities to manage grid load, thereby creating a mutually beneficial system. Integrating the display of calculated metrics (like time remaining, power consumed, and cost) from Kagawa into the intelligent charging framework of MacCready and Lombard would be a natural progression for user convenience and informed decision-making. The concept of an "emergency" or "minimum threshold" charge (Claim 10) that overrides programmed times is also a standard safety feature in battery management systems, and a PHOSITA would implement this to prevent a vehicle from being unusable due to an uncharged battery.

2. Combination for Claim 21 (Remote Communication and Control with Display)

• Claim 21 describes a vehicle charger with a second controller, a display, user controls, and communication means (transmitter/receiver) to communicate with a remote first controller. The second controller changes the charging state based on signals from the first controller, influenced by a user-entered time of day, and displays communication status.

• Combination: MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1) + Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1 / US 8,024,082 B2) + Kagawa (US 7,492,130 B2)

• Disclosure:

  • MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1): Clearly discloses a vehicle charger (second controller) communicating with a remote grid interface/utility (first controller) to manage charging. It details the exchange of information and control signals for adjusting charging based on grid conditions and desired completion times.
  • Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1 / US 8,024,082 B2): Further supports the concept of two-way communication between a vehicle charging system and a utility system, where the utility can send signals to control the charging process based on dynamic pricing or grid stability.
  • Kagawa (US 7,492,130 B2): Demonstrates the use of a display and user-manipulatable controls on the charging device for setting parameters and showing status. The display of communication status (e.g., whether it's connected to the grid) is a routine diagnostic feature for any networked device.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would find it obvious to combine the remote communication and control aspects of MacCready and Lombard with the local display and user interaction features of Kagawa. The motivation is to provide both central control (for utility management) and local user visibility and override capability, which are common requirements in smart home and smart energy systems. Displaying the communication status, as suggested by Kagawa's general teaching of displaying charging status, would be a conventional engineering choice to inform the user about the operational state of the remote control feature.

3. Combination for Claim 23 (Power Interruption Signal)

• Claim 23 describes a vehicle charger where the controller changes power supply based on a time of day and transmits a signal responsive to detection of an interruption of power supply to the vehicle charger.

• Combination: MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1) / Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1) + general knowledge of fault detection and notification in electrical systems.

• Disclosure:

  • MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1) and Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1) disclose vehicle chargers that communicate with a remote controller (e.g., utility). For any system connected to a power grid and involving remote control, detecting and reporting power interruptions is a fundamental diagnostic and safety feature.
  • General knowledge in the art: It is well-known in electrical engineering that power converters, chargers, and grid-connected devices typically include fault detection circuits to monitor input power and system integrity. Upon detecting a power interruption, generating an alert or signal to a connected control system or user (e.g., via SMS, email, or a dashboard warning) is a routine implementation to inform relevant parties about the operational status.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate power interruption detection and signaling into the smart charging systems of MacCready or Lombard. This is driven by reliability and safety concerns, as well as operational transparency. Knowing about a power interruption allows the utility to adjust its grid management, and the user to make alternative charging plans. It is a predictable result of applying known fault monitoring techniques to a networked power device.

4. Combination for Claim 25 (Inductive Charging Alignment Assistance)

• Claim 25 describes an inductive charging system with a first core on the vehicle, a second stationary core, sensors to detect relative position, a display in the vehicle, and a controller to display directional indicators for improved positional alignment.

• Combination: US 2008/0270005 A1 (MacCready et al. - mentions inductive charging generally) + general knowledge of inductive charging alignment systems and sensor feedback displays.

• Disclosure:

  • MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1): While primarily focused on grid communication, MacCready generally mentions "inductive charging systems" as a type of charging mechanism for EVs.
  • General knowledge in the art prior to 2008 (the priority date of 2008-08-18): Inductive power transfer systems, particularly for vehicles, were an active area of research and development. It was well-known that efficient inductive charging required precise alignment between primary and secondary coils. Solutions often involved sensors (e.g., magnetic, optical) to detect misalignment and user feedback mechanisms. For example, some prior art references (not explicitly cited by 11508996 but generally known in the field) discussed using visual indicators or audible alerts to guide a driver for optimal parking over an inductive charging pad. These could include arrow indicators on a dashboard display or parking assistance systems.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, faced with the known challenge of achieving efficient alignment in inductive charging systems, and having knowledge of existing inductive charging concepts (as generally mentioned in MacCready) and sensor-guided parking assistance systems, would be motivated to combine these. The motivation is to improve the user experience and charging efficiency by providing clear, real-time feedback (directional indicators on a display) to guide the vehicle into optimal alignment. This combination would be a straightforward application of known sensor-feedback principles to solve a recognized problem in inductive charging.

5. Combination for Claim 27 (Method for Controlling Multiple Vehicle Charging)

• Claim 27 outlines a method for controlling charging of multiple vehicles by establishing communication with each charger, obtaining desired completion times, and changing power supply to at least some chargers based on these times.

• Combination: MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1) + Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1 / US 8,024,082 B2)

• Disclosure:

  • MacCready (US 2008/0270005 A1): Discloses an "integrated vehicle battery charger and grid interface" that manages charging based on communication with the grid. The concept of "grid interface" implies managing multiple loads (including multiple vehicle chargers) to optimize grid stability and cost. It discusses the utility receiving information from a charger and controlling charging.
  • Lombard (US 2009/0177341 A1 / US 8,024,082 B2): Explicitly describes a "charging system" for electric vehicles designed to operate in a "smart grid" environment. The smart grid paradigm inherently involves coordination and control of multiple distributed loads, including numerous EV chargers. Lombard's system communicates user-desired charging parameters (like completion time) to the grid, which then optimizes power delivery across multiple vehicles to balance load and cost.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, tasked with designing a smart grid-compatible EV charging infrastructure, would inherently recognize the need to manage multiple vehicles. Combining the individual vehicle-to-grid communication and control of MacCready and Lombard would be obvious. The motivation is to achieve efficient and stable grid operation by aggregating information (like desired completion times from various vehicles) and centrally or semi-centrally coordinating charging events across a fleet of vehicles. This approach addresses the problem of potential grid overload if all vehicles charge simultaneously at peak demand, and optimizes charging for cost and grid health, leading to a predictable improvement in power distribution management.

Conclusion on Obviousness

Based on the cited prior art, many of the independent claims of US11508996 appear to be obvious combinations of existing technologies known in the field of smart grid-integrated electric vehicle charging. The references (MacCready, Lombard, Kagawa) collectively disclose the core components of intelligent charging, communication with a remote entity (utility), user input for scheduling, and displaying relevant charging information. The motivations for combining these elements—improving user convenience, optimizing energy costs, balancing grid load, and enhancing safety/diagnostics—were well-understood objectives in the art.

It is important to note the US 2011/0084656 A1 (Austin) reference. As it is a publication by the same inventor, if this publication predates the August 18, 2008, priority date of US11508996 and is not subject to any prior art exceptions under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1), it could be directly anticipatory or render many claims obvious on its own. If it is a later publication than the priority date, it might not be prior art. However, given its publication date of April 14, 2011, and the stated priority date of US11508996 (August 18, 2008), this specific Austin publication would not qualify as prior art against US11508996 unless US11508996 did not actually benefit from the 2008 priority date for the claims being analyzed. The provided Google Patents data states a priority date of 2008-08-18. Therefore, the 2011 Austin publication would typically not be considered prior art for this patent.