DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are pending. Claims 4-5 are canceled. Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 2 and 6 are original. Claim 7 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 6/9/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied secondary reference FUKADA, and further clarification on the modification of primary reference EZER with FUKADA.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “servicer” should be changed to --server--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EZER (US PG Pub 2021/0309119; previously cited) in view of FUKADA (US PG Pub 2011/0121658; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, EZER discloses a server (140, Fig. 1) comprising:
a communicator (¶ 0020: “at least one validation communications unit”) configured to communicate with a plurality of ground power supply devices (¶ 0017: road section 120 having one or more power transmitters disposed) configured to transmit electric power to a vehicle in a non-contact manner (¶ 0005, 0017);
a storage configured to store at least information on a total power supply amount within a predetermined period of the ground power supply devices (¶ 0020-0021: amount of energy received and transmitted is sent to the validation control center 140; ¶ 0025: validation control center 140 processes the data, implying a storage); and
one or more processors (¶ 0025: validation control center 140 processes the data, implying at least one processor) configured to,
based on a total power supply amount of one ground power supply device (¶ 0025: total magnitude of energy; it is noted that the total magnitude of energy is equated with the recited “total power supply amount”, as the sum of the power over a period would give the total energy or the “total power supply amount”.) and a determination threshold value set based on data (¶ 0025: pre-existing and/or known values of energy), determine that stealing or leakage of electricity has occurred in the one ground power supply device (¶ 0006, 0025, 0034), the total power supply amount of the one ground power supply device being a total power supply amount within a predetermined period of the one ground power supply device among the ground power supply devices and being received from the one ground power supply device via the communicator (¶ 0022), the data being data of the total power supply amount within the predetermined period of the ground power supply devices and being stored in the storage (¶ 0023: predefined amount of time; ¶ 0025: magnitude of energy during a recording period).
EZER fails to disclose determining that the stealing or leakage of electricity has occurred when the total power supply amount of one ground power supply device is equal to or greater than the determination threshold value set based on data.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize primary reference EZER determines the stealing or leakage of electricity has occurred when the total power supply amount of one ground power supply device is not equal to the determination threshold value, which may trigger constant or false detections due to natural or unavoidable factors that would not allow normal energy transmission, such as environmental interference, inherent system inefficiencies, etc. Providing the determination based on the total power supply amount being equal to or greater than the determination threshold value, based on the above mentioned factors, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and would not produce new or unexpected results. For example FUKADA discloses determining that the stealing or leakage of electricity has occurred when the power transferred differs by a predetermined value or more from the ordinary power transferred (¶ 0092-0094). Although FUKADA discloses the determination based on instantaneous power, one of ordinary skill would recognize the same approach could be applied to the total power of EZER, e.g., since the sum of the instantaneous power over a period would provide the total power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the determination of stealing or leakage of electricity when the total power supply amount of one ground power supply device is equal to or greater than the determination threshold value as recited in order to improve the detection of theft of electricity by including, e.g., factors that prevent the energy received from being perfectly equal to the energy transmitted, such as environmental interference, inherent system inefficiencies, etc.
EZER fails to disclose the one or more processors configured to instruct the one ground power supply device to prohibit power supply via the communicator.
FUKADA further discloses the one or more processors configured to instruct the one ground power supply device to prohibit power supply via the communicator (¶ 0078: transfer of electric power may be interrupted when it has been determined by the electric power theft determination unit 27 that electric power is stolen. For example, when it has been determined by the electric power theft determination unit 27 that electric power is stolen, an electric power theft detection signal is output to the power transmission origination unit 22, and the transfer of electric power is interrupted by interrupting the output of alternating current electric power in the power transmission origination unit 22. In this case, since transfer of electric power is interrupted immediately when electric power is stolen, theft of electric power can be effectively suppressed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include instructing the ground power supply device to prohibit power in order to minimize the theft of electricity.
Regarding claim 2, EZER discloses the one or more processors are configured to set the determination threshold value by a statistical method using the data (¶ 0025: pre-existing and/or known values of energy).
Regarding claim 3, EZER discloses the one or more processors are configured to set the determination threshold value by the statistical method using first data, out of the data, and the first data is data of a total power supply amount within a predetermined period of the ground power supply device continuously disposed along a traveling lane in which the one ground power supply device is installed (¶ 0005, 0017, 0022, 0025).
Regarding claim 6, EZER discloses the communicator is configured to communicate with an external related organization; and the one or more processors are configured to, when determination is made that the stealing or leakage of electricity has occurred in the one ground power supply device, notify the external related organization that the stealing or leakage of electricity has occurred in the one ground power supply device via the communicator (¶ 0025).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EZER in view of FUKADA as applied to claims 1-3 and 6 above, and further in view of SOUTAR (US 2019/0011283).
Regarding claim 7, EZER as modified by FUKADA teaches the servicer as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the one or more processors are configured to set the determination threshold to be a value ranging from two standard deviations to three standard deviations from an average value of a normal total power supply amount.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the comparison of measured values against a standard deviation or established range of normal values represents a well-known analytical technique to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, SOUTAR discloses setting a determination threshold to be a value that is two standard deviations from an average value of a normal amount (¶ 0148). It would be obvious to apply setting the determination threshold using standard deviations for the determination of stealing or leakage of electricity based on the total power supply amount of EZER as modified by FUKADA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include setting the determination threshold as recited in order to identify statistically significant deviations and potential outliers, and therefore improve the determination of stealing or leakage of electricity of EZER as modified by FUKADA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 9/25/2025
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859