Obviousness

This analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 11721844 is based on the general state of the art and technological trends prior to the patent's priority date of August 18, 2008, and the prior art keywords provided ("battery, vehicle, charging, controller, charge"). It is important to note that specific prior art documents (e.g., other patent numbers or publications) that would directly render the claims obvious are not provided in the supplied patent text. Therefore, this analysis will discuss the types of known elements and the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them, rather than citing specific reference numbers.

A PHOSITA in the field of vehicular battery charging in 2008 would likely possess knowledge of electrical engineering, power electronics, battery management systems, communication protocols, and basic user interface design.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Independent Claim 1: Remote Control of Vehicle Charger

Claim 1 describes a vehicle charger comprising:

• An electrical power cord releasably attachable to a vehicle and a power source.
• A second controller electrically coupled to the power cord.
• A transmitter and/or receiver coupled to the second controller, adapted for communication with a first controller remote from the vehicle and vehicle charger.
• The second controller responsive to signals from the first controller by changing a charging state (increasing/decreasing rate, starting/stopping).

Obviousness Rationale:
By the priority date of August 18, 2008, the fundamental components of this claim were well-known in various technological fields:

1. Vehicle battery chargers with power cords: Devices for charging vehicle batteries were common, and their connection via electrical power cords to both the vehicle and a power source was standard practice.
2. Controllers in electronic devices: It was routine to include microcontrollers or processors in electronic devices, including battery chargers, to manage their operation and charging parameters (e.g., voltage, current, duration).
3. Remote communication with controllers: The concept of remotely controlling electronic devices via wired (e.g., power line communication, LAN) or wireless (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular) networks was established. Smart home systems, industrial control systems, and early smart grid discussions already involved remote monitoring and control of various appliances and infrastructure components. For instance, power line communication (PLC) systems were used for data transmission over existing power lines, as acknowledged in the patent description itself (e.g., distribution line carrier (DLC) PLC systems, broadband over lines carrier (BLC) systems).
4. Changing charging states: Battery chargers often had the capability to adjust charging parameters (e.g., rate, on/off) based on internal logic (e.g., battery state of charge).

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to address several market demands and design needs prevalent before 2008:

• Energy Management/Smart Grid: With growing concerns about energy consumption and the nascent development of electric vehicles, power utilities and energy management companies sought ways to manage electrical load, especially from high-power devices like EV chargers. Remotely controlled chargers offered a solution for demand-side management, allowing utilities to optimize grid stability and efficiency by adjusting charging schedules during peak demand or when renewable energy was abundant.
• Cost Optimization: As variable electricity pricing (e.g., time-of-use tariffs) became more common, consumers and utilities alike had an interest in scheduling charging during off-peak hours to reduce costs. Remote control would enable utilities to push real-time pricing signals or direct charging commands to minimize consumer cost and grid strain.
• Convenience and User Control: Remote control offered convenience for users who might want to start, stop, or adjust charging from a mobile device or home computer, even if not physically present with the charger or vehicle.

Therefore, the combination of a vehicle charger with an internal controller and a communication interface to a remote controller, allowing the remote controller to change the charger's state, would have been an obvious design choice driven by energy management, cost optimization, and user convenience considerations prior to August 18, 2008.

Independent Claim 10: User-Entered Charge Completion Time

Claim 10 describes a vehicle charger comprising:

• A controller.
• A display coupled to the controller and adapted to display a time.
• A user-manipulatable control operable by a user to enter a time of day at which the charging session will end.
• The controller changing the supply of electric power to the vehicle battery (increasing/decreasing rate, starting, stopping) based at least in part upon the time needed to charge the vehicle battery by the entered time of day.

Obviousness Rationale:
The elements of this claim were generally known in consumer electronics and battery management:

1. Displays and user controls: Electronic devices commonly featured displays (LCD, LED) to show time and other information, alongside user-manipulatable controls (buttons, dials) for inputting settings. Programmable timers for household appliances (e.g., VCRs, coffee makers, washing machines, thermostats) allowing users to set a desired "completion by" or "start at" time were ubiquitous.
2. Battery charge management: Controllers in battery chargers were already capable of monitoring battery state of charge and adjusting charging rates (e.g., fast charge, trickle charge) to optimize charging efficiency and battery lifespan.
3. Time-based scheduling: Scheduling events based on a user-entered time was a standard function for many electronic devices with internal clocks.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to provide enhanced user convenience and optimize charging based on user schedules:

• User Convenience: Electric vehicle owners often need their vehicles fully charged by a specific time (e.g., before commuting to work). Enabling users to simply input a desired "finish by" time directly into the charger or via an in-vehicle interface (as described in the patent, e.g., FIGS. 13-14) provides significant convenience. This eliminates the need for users to calculate optimal start times or constantly monitor charging progress.
• Integration with Variable Electricity Pricing: While Claim 10 doesn't explicitly mention external communication for pricing, providing a user-set completion time allows the charger's internal logic (or potential future integration with external systems, as in Claim 1) to determine the best charging profile to meet the deadline, potentially leveraging off-peak hours. The patent explicitly notes that power utilities encourage consumption at non-peak periods and offer discounts, providing a clear motivation for users to schedule charging.

Therefore, applying well-known programmable timer and scheduling functionalities, commonly found in other household appliances, to a vehicle battery charger to enable a user to specify a "charge by" time, and then managing the charge to meet that deadline, would have been an obvious adaptation driven by user convenience and energy management considerations prior to August 18, 2008.

Independent Claim 19: Centralized Control of Multiple Vehicle Charging Sessions

Claim 19 describes a method of controlling charging of batteries of multiple vehicles comprising:

• Establishing communication with a controller associated with a battery charger of each vehicle.
• Obtaining from each battery charger a time of day by which battery charging for the vehicle must be completed.
• Changing power supply to at least some of the battery chargers based at least in part upon the time of day received from the battery chargers.

Obviousness Rationale:
This method builds upon the principles discussed for Claim 1 and extends them to a multi-vehicle, system-wide context.

1. Networking controllers: Establishing communication with multiple networked devices (controllers in this case) was a core aspect of industrial control systems, building management systems, and early smart grid infrastructure discussions.
2. Centralized data collection: Collecting operational parameters (like desired completion times) from multiple networked devices at a central point was standard practice in supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and network management.
3. Dynamic power management: Power generation and distribution systems regularly manage and adjust power supply to various loads, often in response to demand fluctuations, grid conditions, or cost factors. The patent describes a power generation and distribution system (system 10) that includes sources of power (12) and power lines (14) to various locations (16).
4. Demand-side management (DSM): As mentioned, DSM was a recognized strategy in power utilities to influence customer energy consumption patterns to optimize grid operation.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA, particularly one working for a power utility or in smart grid development, would have been strongly motivated to combine these elements to address critical grid management challenges:

• Grid Stability and Load Balancing: The rapid increase in electric vehicles could lead to significant and unpredictable spikes in electricity demand if all vehicles charged simultaneously. A method to centrally coordinate charging based on user-defined completion times allows the power utility to intelligently "orchestrate" charging across many vehicles, smoothing out demand peaks and preventing grid overload. The patent highlights that "widespread use of the vehicle charging cord 22 may result in surges of power demand at particular off-peak times" and that the system "can help to reduce or eliminate these problems".
• Integration of Renewable Energy: Managing variable renewable energy sources (solar, wind) benefits from flexible loads. If a utility knows when vehicles must be charged by, it can strategically inject power into charging sessions when renewable generation is high or demand is low, without inconveniencing the user.
• Economic Efficiency: By controlling when power is supplied to chargers, utilities can purchase or generate electricity more efficiently, leveraging lower-cost periods and passing potential savings to consumers or improving their operational margins.

Therefore, the method of centrally managing the charging of multiple vehicles by communicating with individual chargers, collecting user-defined completion times, and then adjusting power supply based on these times, would have been an obvious application of known networking, data collection, and demand-side management principles to address the emerging challenges of widespread EV adoption on the electrical grid, prior to August 18, 2008.