Obviousness

A comprehensive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires specific prior art references (patents, publications, products, etc.) that predate the patent's priority date (August 18, 2008). The provided patent text for US11909011, while listing "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date," does not explicitly identify any specific prior art documents. Therefore, this analysis will proceed by considering the general state of the art and common knowledge available to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) around the priority date, as inferred from the provided "Prior art keywords": vehicle, battery, controller, power, charging.

A PHOSITA in 2008 would have been familiar with:

• Vehicle and Battery Technology: Electric vehicles and their associated battery technologies were well-understood, even if not as widespread as today. Battery management systems (BMS) were in use to monitor and control charging and discharging.
• Control Systems: Microcontrollers, embedded systems, and general control logic were common in automotive and consumer electronics for managing various functions.
• Power and Charging: Basic battery charging principles and circuitry were widely known.
• User Interfaces: Displays (LCD, LED), physical buttons, and menu-driven interfaces were standard features in electronic devices and vehicles for conveying information and receiving user input.
• Communication Technologies: Wired and wireless communication protocols (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular, power line communication (PLC)) were established and used for various applications, including remote monitoring and control.
• Smart Grid Concepts: Early concepts of smart grids, demand-side management, and time-of-use (TOU) electricity pricing were emerging or under discussion, aiming to optimize energy consumption and grid stability.

Given these general knowledge areas, the independent claims of US11909011 can be analyzed for obviousness as follows:

Analysis of Independent Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Independent Claim 1: Vehicular Battery Charger with Time-Based Control and Display

Claim elements: A vehicular battery charger comprising a controller; a display coupled to the controller and adapted to display a time; and a user-manipulatable control coupled to the controller and 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 during the course of the charging session by at least one of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, or stopping battery charging based at least in part upon the time needed to charge the vehicle battery by the time of day entered by the user.

Obviousness Argument:
A PHOSITA in 2008 would find it obvious to combine a standard battery charger with a programmable timer and a user interface to schedule charging. Programmable timers and scheduling functions were prevalent in various consumer electronics (e.g., VCRs/DVRs, home appliances, thermostats) for starting/stopping operations at a specified time. Displays and user-manipulatable controls were standard for electronic devices. The motivation for combining these would be user convenience and the ability to take advantage of time-of-use electricity rates, which were already a known concept. Given a desired end time and knowledge of the battery's current state of charge and capacity (both measurable by existing battery management systems), a PHOSITA would readily understand how to calculate the required charging duration and adjust the charging rate or start time to meet the user-specified completion time. This involves straightforward control logic commonly implemented in embedded systems.

Independent Claim 13: Vehicular Battery Charger with Remote Communication

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle and adapted for communication with a first controller remote from the vehicle and vehicle charger, wherein the vehicle charger comprises an electrical power cord releasably attachable to at least one of the vehicle and a source of power; a second controller electrically coupled to the electrical power cord; and at least one of a transmitter and a receiver coupled to the second controller and adapted for communication with the first controller, the second controller responsive to at least one signal from the first controller by changing a charging state of the vehicle charger.

Obviousness Argument:
The concept of remotely controlling electronic devices was well-established by 2008. From remote-control garage door openers to networked industrial control systems and early smart home applications, the ability of a remote controller to send signals to a local controller to change an operational state was known. Applying this to a vehicle battery charger, which inherently deals with managing power, would be obvious to a PHOSITA. The "Prior art keywords" themselves mention "controller" and "charging." The motivation would be to enable remote user control for convenience or, more significantly, to integrate vehicle charging into emerging "smart grid" or demand-response systems, allowing a power utility (first controller) to manage aggregated charging loads by altering the charging state (rate, start/stop) of individual chargers (second controller) to balance the electrical grid. Communication via power lines (PLC), Wi-Fi, or cellular networks were all available technologies.

Independent Claim 14: Vehicular Battery Charger with Minimum Charge Override

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle charger comprises: a controller; and a memory coupled to the controller and in which to save a time of day entered by a user; the controller changing a supply of electric power to charge the battery during the course of a charging session by at least one of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, or stopping battery charging based at least in part upon the time of day entered by the user; and wherein the controller supplies electric power to the battery if a level of battery charge is below a threshold level of battery charge independent of the time of day entered by the user, the controller supplying electric power to the battery until the threshold level of battery charge is reached.

Obviousness Argument:
This claim combines the time-based charging control (as in Claim 1 concepts) with a safety or utility override for a minimum charge level. Battery management systems (BMS) in all types of battery-powered devices commonly included logic to prevent over-discharge or to ensure a minimum functional charge. A PHOSITA would recognize the practical need to ensure a vehicle battery always retains a usable charge level, regardless of a programmed schedule or external grid management. It would be obvious to integrate a condition-based override (i.e., "IF charge < threshold THEN charge") into the charging logic. The motivation would be to enhance user confidence and vehicle usability, preventing scenarios where a user's schedule or external control leaves the vehicle with insufficient charge for immediate use.

Independent Claim 15: Vehicular Battery Charger with Multiple Display Screens

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle comprising a controller; a display coupled to the controller; and a memory accessible by the controller and in which to save a time of day; the controller changing a supply of electric power to charge the battery during the course of a charging session by at least one of increasing a rate of charge of the battery, decreasing the rate of charge of the battery, starting battery charging, or stopping battery charging based at least in part upon the time of day; the controller operable to display at least two different screens upon the display, at least one of the screens displaying information regarding a charging session, and at least one of the screens displaying settings at least partially defining the manner of operation of the vehicle charger.

Obviousness Argument:
The concept of presenting information and settings on multiple, navigable screens via a display was a standard user interface design paradigm for electronic devices by 2008. From mobile phones and PDAs to automotive infotainment systems and complex home appliances, users were accustomed to switching between status displays and settings menus. A PHOSITA applying this widely known UI principle to a programmable battery charger (which, as in Claim 1, handles both status information like time remaining and configurable settings like end time) would find it obvious. The motivation is to organize information logically and provide a user-friendly way to interact with a device that has multiple functions and data points, particularly when screen real estate might be limited.

Independent Claim 18: Vehicular Charging System for Multiple Vehicles

Claim elements: A method of controlling charging of batteries of multiple vehicles each electrically connected to a power generation and distribution system, wherein the method comprises 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 associated with the battery charger must be completed; and 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 Argument:
This claim describes a system-level extension of remote communication and time-based control to multiple vehicles, which would be obvious to a PHOSITA in the context of emerging smart grid technologies by 2008. The challenges of managing large, distributed electrical loads (such as widespread EV charging) and the potential benefits of shifting demand to off-peak hours were well-recognized. Combining individual communicating chargers (as in Claim 13 concepts) with a central management system (e.g., a power utility's controller) to coordinate charging schedules was a natural progression. The motivation would be to optimize overall grid load, prevent localized power surges, and potentially reduce energy costs for both utilities and consumers by leveraging demand response strategies. The method of gathering completion times and then adjusting power supply based on these aggregated deadlines uses known optimization principles for resource allocation.

Independent Claim 21: Vehicular Battery Charger with In-Vehicle Display and Inductive Alignment

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle charger comprises a first core on the vehicle; a second core in a location stationary with respect to the first core, the second core providing an inductive charge to the first core in at least one position of the first core with respect to the second core; at least one sensor positioned to detect the position of the first core with respect to the second core; a display mounted within the vehicle within view of a user seated within the vehicle; and a controller coupled to the display and responsive to signals from the sensor to display at least one indicator on the display indicating a direction in which the vehicle must move for an improved positional relationship between the first and second cores.

Obviousness Argument:
Inductive power transfer was a known technology by 2008, used in applications like electric toothbrushes and even some early attempts at wireless charging for smaller devices. A key challenge for efficient inductive charging is precise alignment. The use of sensors to detect relative positions and provide feedback for alignment was also known in various automotive contexts (e.g., parking assist systems using ultrasonic sensors and displaying directional guidance on in-vehicle displays). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to apply these known principles of sensor-based alignment guidance (common in car parking assist systems) to the specific problem of aligning inductive charging coils in an EV. The motivation is to improve the efficiency and user-friendliness of inductive vehicle charging by providing clear visual cues for optimal vehicle positioning.

Independent Claim 22: Vehicular Battery Charger with Multiple Charging Ports

Claim elements: A vehicle charger for charging a battery of a vehicle comprises a controller; a first electrical connector coupled to the battery and the controller and located on one side of the vehicle; and a second electrical connector coupled to the battery and the controller and located on a different side of the vehicle, the first and second electrical connectors both shaped and dimensioned for releasable connection to an electrical power cord supplying power to the vehicle from an external power source.

Obviousness Argument:
This claim focuses on the physical arrangement of charging ports on a vehicle. Vehicles, by 2008, commonly had multiple access points for various functions (e.g., fuel filler caps on different sides for different car models or regions, or utility vehicles with multiple connection points). The idea of providing dual access points for user convenience is a matter of conventional engineering design. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to place charging connectors on different sides of a vehicle. The motivation is purely practical: to enhance user convenience by allowing charging from either side, accommodating various parking situations or charging station layouts, and increasing the overall flexibility of the vehicle's charging experience. The electrical connections to the battery and controller would follow standard automotive wiring practices.

Conclusion:
Based on the general knowledge and technological advancements known to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the August 18, 2008 priority date, the core concepts in all independent claims of US11909011 appear to be obvious combinations of existing technologies. The motivation for these combinations stems from improving user convenience, optimizing energy consumption, enhancing safety features, and addressing practical challenges in the context of electric vehicle charging and grid management. Without specific prior art documents, it is not possible to provide concrete combinations of specific references; however, the principles underlying the claims are extensions of well-known engineering practices and system design considerations of the time.