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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 5-6, 11, 15-16 and 19 are currently amended.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 and 11 by adding limitations from limitations from previously rejected dependent claims 5-6 and 15-16 respectively.
Applicant argued that MARTIN as modified by WU, KITANI and FISHER does not disclose "identifying, by the processor, an object associated with the charging abnormality from the surrounding image, wherein the updated charging situation information includes image-based information representing the charging abnormality based on the identified object. Applicant argues that WU merely discloses a GUI for displaying charging status information unrelated to object recognition or image-based analysis, and that FISHER merely discloses acquiring images around the vehicle or displaying vehicle alignment information which does not qualify as identifying a charging abnormality. The examiner respectfully disagrees and explains that "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012)." The examiner explains that MARTIN discloses a vehicle charging system comprising sensors for detecting the presence of an object in the charging area using sensors and stops charging when an object is detected in the charging area. This inherently indicates that the detection system identifies the object from a surrounding area such that the system does not mistake any object that normally exists in the charging area for an obstacle and incorrectly stops charging (see MARTIN, Par.21 and Fig.3, Steps#308 and 314). MARTIN further discloses the sensors used in detecting an obstacle in the charging area include "radar sensors...ultrasonic or infrared sensing techniques..." [par.19]. The examiner explains that the sensors disclosed by MARTIN by themselves enough to satisfy the image-acquisition unit performing identification of an object associated with a charging abnormality [obstacle] as radar systems process the reflected signals to build 2D and 3D images of the surroundings. However, the examiner further provided FISHER to show that infrared sensors [disclosed by MARTIN as well] can be used as an imaging sensor to identify objects. WU was relied upon to address the limitations of displaying an image showing the presence of a detected charging obstacle. A motivational statement was provided to modify the teachings of MARTIN with KITANI, WU and FISHER.
To move prosecution forward, the examiner provided newly found prior art reference PRASAD et al. (US 2021/0237594) to address the newly added limitations (in case applicant may be narrowly interpreting the imaging acquisition device to be a camera-based system).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 11, 13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN et al. (US 2014/0021912 A1, hereinafter MARTIN) in view of WU et al. (US 2015/0069969 A1, hereinafter WU) and in further view of PRASAD et al. (US 2021/0237594 A1, hereinafter PRASAD).
Regarding claims 1 and 11 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitations matching purposes), MARTIN discloses an electric moving object of guiding a situation of wireless charging, the electric moving object comprising:
a power reception module unit configured to receive power through a power transmission module unit of a wireless charging device (See Fig.1 and Par.12, disclose an induction charge plate 18 to receive power from a primary induction plate 20);
a charging controller configured to control a charging operation (See Fig.1, Item#22 and Par.18, disclose a vehicle controller which is configured to control charging by enabling or disabling the charger 12 based on measurements of battery state of charge and sensor data) and to generate data associated with information on a charging situation (See Pars.24-25, disclose the vehicle controller determines the SOC of the battery and generates a command to the external charger to start charging when the SOC is below a threshold, Fig.2, Step#216. The activation signal or stop/disable signal is interpreted as data associated with charging situation) including charging obstacle information that occurs during a charging abnormality (See Fig.3, steps#306, 308 and 314 and Pars.17 and 27, disclose the vehicle comprising a sensor to detect the surrounding of the vehicle and charging is activated when no foreign object is detected [Step#310] and charging is stopped/disabled when a foreign object is detected [Step#314]); and
a processor configured to transmit data associated with the information on the charging situation so that the data is displayed on a user device (See Par.121 and Fig.3, Step#318 and Fig.1 Item#26, disclose the messages indicating the presence of a foreign object are displayed to the user, the presence of a processor either separate or using the controller 120 to transmit the data to be displayed on the display 26 is inherent),
wherein the charging controller is configured to determine resolution of the charging abnormality and control resumption of wireless charging while generating updated charging situation information (See Par.27 and Fig.3, disclose that after the process begins, if no object is detected at step#308, charging is enabled at step#310 and the process loops back to Step#302 to monitor for the presence of an object. If in the second loop an object is detected in step#308, then charging is disabled in step#314 and a notification to the user is sent in steps#318 and 320. The process loops back to step#306 and when the object is determined to be cleared by the user in step#308, charging is resumed after being stopped in the previous loop).
However, MARTIN does not disclose the controller generating data associated with information on a charging situation including charging progress information including charging progress information,
wherein the electric moving object further comprises an image acquisition unit configured to obtain a surrounding image of the electric moving object,
wherein the processor is configured to identify an object associated with a charging abnormality from the surrounding image, and
wherein the updated charging situation information includes image-based information representing the charging abnormality based on the identified object.
WU discloses a system for guiding an alignment between a vehicle and a wireless charging system, the vehicle comprising a controller which generates data associated with a charging situation including charging progress information (See Fig.4, discloses a graphical user interface providing charging information to the user 402. Fig.5 shows displaying when “alignment failed” and “foreign object detected”. Both considered to be charging obstacles that occur during a charging abnormality).
MARTIN and WU are analogous art since they both deal with vehicle alignment during wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN with the teachings of WU by generating charging progress in addition to charging obstacle information for the benefit of allowing the user to monitor charging progress.
However, MARTIN and WU do not disclose wherein the electric moving object further comprises an image acquisition unit configured to obtain a surrounding image of the electric moving object,
wherein the processor is configured to identify an object associated with a charging abnormality from the surrounding image, and
wherein the updated charging situation information includes image-based information representing the charging abnormality based on the identified object.
PRASAD discloses a vehicle alignment and foreign object detection system comprising an image acquisition unit configured to obtain a surrounding image of the electric moving object (See Par.8, discloses a camera based foreign object and alignment for parking assist and optimizes wireless charging. Par.38 Front, back, side and under carriage cameras are used to detect living object or foreign object),
wherein the processor is configured to identify an object associated with a charging abnormality from the surrounding image (See Fig.2, and Pars.35 and 38, discloses that the VPS processing system 104, analyzes the data from the plurality of cameras and detects the presence, type and location of the object. Par.38 discloses using the camera data to detect a foreign object), and
wherein the updated charging situation information includes image-based information representing the charging abnormality based on the identified object (See Par.54 and Fig.5, Step#331=Yes and 333, disclose detecting a foreign object using the acquired camera images and generating a driver alert, the alert may be visual i.e. displaying the presence of a foreign object).
MARTIN, WU and PRASAD are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle alignment during wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN and WU with the teachings of PRASAD by adding image acquisition units to detect the presence of a foreign object for the benefit of optimizing charging efficiency by improving the foreign object detection (See PRASAD, Par.37 discloses there are shortcomings of using radar for foreign object detection under the vehicle resulting in false positives).
Regarding claims 3 and 13 (Claim 3 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU and PRASAD disclose the electric moving object of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the charging obstacle information is information indicating an element that causes temporary stop of the charging operation or charging failure by the charging abnormality (See MARTIN, Par.17 and Fig.3, discloses the presence of a foreign object which causes charging to be stopped. The examiner explains that the presence of a foreign object reduces charging efficiency which stops wireless charging. PRASAD, Par.38, further discloses detecting the presence of a foreign object and suspending charging because of its presence).
Regarding claims 7 and 17 (claim 7 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU and PRASAD disclose the electric moving object of claim 3 as discussed above, However, MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 3 do not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to display data associated with guide information resolving the stopping element on the user device, when resolving the stopping element in case of stop of charging due to the charging abnormality, and wherein, when the stopping element is not resolved, the processor is further configured to display data associated with the charging obstacle information, which causes the charging failure, on the user device.
WU further discloses displaying data associated with guide information resolving the stopping element on the user device (See Fig.5, Item#502, discloses displaying arrows and a presentation of the location of the charge transmitting device to guide the user to align the charge receiving device with the charge transmitting device), when a stopping element is not resolved, the processor is further configured to display data associated with the charging obstacle information, which causes the charging failure, on the user device (See Fig.5, Item#506 and 508, disclose displaying when alignment fails or when a foreign object is present in the charging area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 3 with the further teachings of WU by adding guidance to resolve a stopping issue (misalignment) and providing an indication when alignment fails for the benefit of alerting the user to take proper action needed for improving the charging efficiency.
Regarding claims 8 and 18 (claim 8 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU and PRASAD disclose the electric moving object of claim 1 as discussed above, However MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 1 do not disclose wherein the electric moving object is configured to transmit the data associated with the information on the charging situation to a server, and wherein the user device is configured to receive the information on the charging situation, which is generated based on the data, from the server.
WU further teaches performing the execution of the software to identify an error on an external server (See Par.33, discloses performing the functions on a server or a remote computer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 1 with the further teachings of WU by performing the stopping/abnormality detection on a server for the benefit of reducing the infrastructure cost by centralizing the determination process.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN in view of WU and PRASAD and in further view of KITANI (US 2014/0035391 A1, hereinafter KITANI).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14 (claim 4 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU and PRASAD disclose the electric moving object of claim 3 as discussed above,
However, MARTIN, WU and PRASAD do not disclose wherein the charging obstacle information includes at least one of pairing misalignment information indicating a misalignment based on location information of the power transmission module unit and the power reception module unit, pairing abnormality information caused by a poor pairing connection between the power transmission unit and the power reception unit, power transmission module abnormality information indicating an abnormal situation of the power transmission module unit, moving object abnormality information caused by a charging system abnormality of the electric moving object, power abnormality information according to power degradation of the wireless charging device, and external environment information causing the charging abnormality.
KITANI discloses an electric moving object receiving wireless charging, wherein a charging obstacle is detected and charging obstacle information is provided to remove the obstacle, wherein the charging obstacle information includes pairing abnormality information caused by a poor pairing connection between the power transmission unit (See KITANI, Par.98, discloses detecting failure of normal data communication with the power receiving device 3) or power transmission module abnormality information indicating an abnormal situation of the power transmission module unit (See KITANI, Par.98, discloses detecting an abnormality based on receiving an extremely small amount of power).
MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD with the teachings of KITANI by adding detection of poor pairing as obstacle information for the benefit of protecting the vehicle against overcharging caused by the charger not receiving a charging end command from the vehicle side.
Regarding claims 9 and 19 (claim 9 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU and PRASAD disclose the electric moving object of claim 1 as discussed above, However, MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 1 do not disclose wherein, when the electric moving object enters a charging zone of the wireless charging device, the processor is further configured to:
maintain a predetermined distance to the object around the charging zone, generating information on a charging location that realizes normal pairing between the power transmission module unit and the power reception module unit, and
provide the information on the charging location to any one of a display of the electric moving object and the user device.
WU further teaches generating information on a charging location that realizes normal pairing between the power transmission module unit and the power reception module unit (See Fig.4, Item#410, discloses direction arrows and an indication of the location of the charge transmitting coil to allow the user to perform alignment that realizes normal pairing between the power transmission module and the power reception module), and
provide the information on the charging location to any one of a display of the electric moving object and the user device (See Fig.4, Item#410 and 412, disclose displaying direction of alignment and alignment status to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 1 with the further teachings of WU by providing information on the charging location that provides normal pairing between the power transmission device and the power reception device for the benefit of allowing the user to steer the vehicle to a position where efficient charging takes place.
However, MARTIN, WU and PRASAD do not disclose the processor is configured to: maintain a predetermined distance to an object around the charging zone.
KITANI discloses an electric moving object receiving wireless charging, wherein a charging obstacle is detected and charging obstacle information is provided to remove the obstacle, further comprising maintain a predetermined distance to an object around the charging zone (See KITANI, Pars.94 and 98, disclose generating an error message when the received power amount is too small or there is a problem in pairing. This is interpreted to be an output that instructs the user to be within a certain distance from the charging coil in order to perform pairing and efficient charging).
MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD with the teachings of KITANI by maintaining a predetermined distance to an object around the charging zone for the benefit of improving the charging efficiency.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 10, 12, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN in view of WU, PRASAD and KITANI and in further view of FISHER (US 2014/0132208, hereinafter FISHER).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation purposes), MARTIN, WU and PRASAD disclose the electric moving object of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the charging progress information includes charging state information (See Par.121 and Fig.3, Step#318 and FIg.1 Item#26, disclose the messages indicating the presence of a foreign object are displayed to the user) which includes a charging amount according to the charging operation (See WU, Fig.4, discloses charging amount 402 is displayed. This feature is disclosed by MARTIN in view of WU as applied to claim 1).
However, MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 1 do not disclose the charging progress information includes pairing information between the power transmission module unit and the power reception module unit, charging efficiency and an expected charging time.
WU further teaches displaying information including expected charging time (See Fig.4, Item#408).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD as applied to claim 1 with the further teachings of WU by displaying the expected charging time for the benefit of alerting the user to the time needed for the vehicle to reach the charging target.
However, MARTIN, WU and PRASAD do not disclose the charging progress information includes pairing information between the power transmission module unit and the power reception module unit and charging state information includes charging efficiency.
KITANI discloses an electric moving object receiving wireless charging, wherein a charging obstacle is detected and charging obstacle information is provided to remove the obstacle, wherein the charging information includes pairing abnormality information caused by a poor pairing connection between the power transmission unit (See KITANI, Par.98, discloses detecting failure of normal data communication with the power receiving device 3).
MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU and PRASAD with the teachings of KITANI by adding detection of poor pairing as obstacle information for the benefit of protecting the vehicle against overcharging caused by the charger not receiving a charging end command from the vehicle side.
However, MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI do not disclose the charging progress information includes charging state information includes charging efficiency.
FISHER discloses a vehicle guiding and wireless charging system, comprising displaying charging efficiency (See Figs.5-6, and Par.35disclose displaying charging efficiency).
MARTIN, WU, PRASAD, KITANI and FISHER are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI and FISHER with the teachings of FISHER by displaying the charging efficiency for the benefit of providing a visual indication to the user of the current charging efficiency to make proper adjustments to increase the charging efficiency.
Regarding claims 5 and 15 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI disclose the electric moving object of claim 4 as discussed above, However MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI do not disclose further including:
wherein the pairing misalignment information and the power transmission module abnormality information are provided as an image that estimates the misalignment and the abnormal situation based on the surround image which is obtained from the image acquisition unit during the charging operation.
FISHER discloses a vehicle comprising an image acquisition unit configured to obtain a surround image of the vehicle (See Figs.2-3, Items#38 and Pars.29-39, disclose sensors on the vehicle comprising an imaging device to detect location of the vehicle with respect to the charging device and generate alignment data as shown in Fig.5, Item#50), wherein the pairing misalignment information and the power transmission module abnormality information are provided as an image that estimates the misalignment and the abnormal situation based on the surround image which is obtained from the image acquisition unit during the charging operation (See Figs.5-6 disclose displaying charging efficiency [62] and alignment instructions to the user to correct alignment [50]. As discussed in claim 1 rejection, MARTIN discloses detecting a charging obstacle and sends a message. KITANI discloses detecting poor pairing and sending an alert. MARTIN as modified by WU and in further view of KITAINI and FISHER would provide a visual representation as disclosed by FISHER when one of those detections i.e. pairing misalignment, misalignment detected by camera is detected).
MARTIN, WU, PRASAD, KITANI and FISHER are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITAINI with the teachings of FISHER by using the image acquisition units to detect misalignment between the vehicle and the charger and displaying misalignment to the driver for the benefit of providing alerting the user to misalignment and allowing the user to recognize proper adjustments to correct misalignment.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, MARTIN, WU, PRASAD, KITANI and FISHER disclose the electric moving object of claim 5 as discussed above, wherein the power transmission module unit includes a detector configured to detect the abnormal situation, and wherein the power transmission module unit is further configured to transmit, to the processor (See MARTIN, Fig.3, steps#306, 308 and 314 and Pars.17 and 27, disclose the vehicle comprising a sensor to detect the surrounding of the vehicle and charging is activated when no foreign object is detected [Step#310] and charging is stopped/disabled when a foreign object is detected [Step#314]).
wherein the power transmission module unit is further configured to transmit, to the processor, abnormal situation data associated with presence of [[an]] the object on the power transmission module unit, which is detected by the detector, and with an impact on the power transmission module unit caused by the object. (WU Par.73 and Fig.5, Item#508, further discloses detecting a foreign object between a power transmission module and the power receiver and displaying an image alerting the user of the presence of a foreign object. PRASAD also discloses the use of a plurality of cameras to detect the presence of a foreign object around the vehicle and transmitting an alert to the user [ see rejection of claims 1 and 11 above]. Therefore, MARTIN as modified by WU, KITANI, PRASAD and FISHER discloses detecting the presence of a foreign object around the vehicle using the imaging device).
Regarding claims 10 and 20 (claim 10 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI disclose the electric moving object of claim 9 as discussed above, However, MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI do not disclose wherein the information on the charging location is displayed to include a virtual charging park line where the electric moving object is parked within the charging zone.
FISHER further discloses a vehicle comprising a user device on which information on the charging location is displayed to include a virtual charging park line where the electric moving object is parked within the charging zone (See Figs.4-5, Item#48, disclose a display on which a virtual charging park line is displayed to provide alignment guidance).
MARTIN, WU, PRASAD, KITANI and FISHER are analogous art since they all deal with vehicle wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by MARTIN, WU, PRASAD and KITANI with the teachings of FISHER by displaying charging park line on the user device for the benefit of providing alignment guidance to the user to optimize wireless charging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights