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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-16 are currently pending. Claim 7 was canceled per Applicant. Claim 14 was previously canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-16 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 03/11/2026. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Öhman (US 20190054833 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Öhman discloses a method of connection and disconnection of a vehicle to/from a plurality of electrical lines of an electric road system (Fig.2), wherein the method comprises: in response to a disconnect warning and if the vehicle is connected to the plurality of electrical lines, blocking an electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines from being supplied to a powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0052]); maintaining the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines is blocked from being supplied to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0023]); and while the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines is maintained and the disconnect warning is not cleared within a time period (shut off electrical power transmission within a predetermined time period of the calculated time period; Para.[0025] and charge segment not changed from disabled to enabled transmitted to control unit during calculated time period; Para.[0055]), disconnecting the vehicle from the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is blocked in response to the disconnect warning (Para.[0052]).
Regarding claim 2: Öhman further discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the blocking of the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is performed in the vehicle (Para.[0054]).
Regarding claim 4: Öhman further discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the blocking of the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle comprises decreasing the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle to zero (Para.[0054]).
Regarding claim 5: Öhman further discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: when the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines is maintained and the disconnect warning is cleared, passing the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0055]).
Regarding claim 6: Öhman further discloses a method according to claim 5, wherein the passing of the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle comprises increasing the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle above a second threshold (Para.[0053], lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 8: Öhman further discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the disconnect warning comprises one or more of the group of: the vehicle is about to leave a proper path of a road associated with the electric road system, wherein the proper path is a path along the extension of the plurality of electrical lines on which the vehicle may properly stay connected to the plurality of electrical lines (Para.[0057]); leaving path with charging segments); the vehicle is about to leave a first predefined zone associated with the electric road system (leaving enabled charge segments 102 and entering disabled segments 116; Fig.2); and the vehicle is about to enter a second predefined zone associated with the electric road system (entering enabled charge segments 102 after 116; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9: Öhman further discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises an interface for providing connection between the vehicle and the plurality of electrical lines (Fig.1), and wherein the interface comprises a connection device (12; Fig.1) movable between a connection position, in which the connection device and the vehicle are connected to the plurality of electrical lines, and a disconnection position, in which the connection device and the vehicle are disconnected from the plurality of electrical lines, and wherein the step of maintaining the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines, while the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is blocked in response to the disconnect warning, comprises maintaining the connection device in the connection position (charging component lifted and lowered as desired; Para.[0023]).
Regarding claim 13: Öhman discloses a computer program comprising computer program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said computer program product used for connection and disconnection of a vehicle to/from a plurality of electrical lines of an electric road system (Para.[0027]), said computer program code comprising computer instructions to cause one or more control units to perform the following operation: in response to a disconnect warning and if the vehicle is connected to the plurality of electrical lines, blocking an electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines from being supplied to a powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0052]);
maintaining the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines is blocked from being supplied to the powertrain of the vehicle; and while the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines is maintained and the disconnect warning is not cleared within a time period (shut off electrical power transmission within a predetermined time period of the calculated time period; Para.[0025] and charge segment not changed from disabled to enabled transmitted to control unit during calculated time period; Para.[0055]), disconnecting the vehicle from the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is blocked in response to the disconnect warning (Para.[0052]).
Regarding claim 15: Öhman discloses a control arrangement for connection and disconnection of a vehicle to/from a plurality of electrical lines of an electric road system (Fig.2), wherein the control arrangement is configured to:
in response to a disconnect warning and if the vehicle is connected to the plurality of electrical lines, blocking an electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines from being supplied to a powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0052]);
maintain the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines is blocked from being supplied to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0023]); and while the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines is maintained and the disconnect warning is not cleared within a time period (shut off electrical power transmission within a predetermined time period of the calculated time period; Para.[0025] and charge segment not changed from disabled to enabled transmitted to control unit during calculated time period; Para.[0055]), disconnecting the vehicle from the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is blocked in response to the disconnect warning (Para.[0052]).
Regarding claim 16: Öhman discloses a vehicle (10; Fig.1) comprising a control arrangement for connection and disconnection of a vehicle to/from a plurality of electrical lines of an electric road system, wherein the control arrangement is configured to: in response to a disconnect warning and if the vehicle is connected to the plurality of electrical lines, blocking an electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines from being supplied to a powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0052]); maintain the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines is blocked from being supplied to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0023]); and while the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of electrical lines is maintained and the disconnect warning is not cleared within a time period (shut off electrical power transmission within a predetermined time period of the calculated time period; Para.[0025] and charge segment not changed from disabled to enabled transmitted to control unit during calculated time period; Para.[0055]), disconnect the vehicle from the plurality of electrical lines while the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is blocked in response to the disconnect warning (Para.[0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Öhman in view of Meinert et al. (WO 2011147708 A2).
Regarding claim 3: Öhman teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the blocking of the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle comprises decreasing the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0052]). Öhman does not teach decreasing the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle below a first threshold.
However, Meinert teaches decreasing the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle below a first threshold (See attached EPO translation; Para.[0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Öhman to lower the electric current as in Meinert to provide an adaptable method to better control current flow as desired between the vehicle and electric lines with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Öhman teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises an interface for providing connection between the vehicle and the plurality of electrical lines (Fig.1). Öhman does not teach a DC-to-DC converter, and wherein the method further comprises controlling the DC-to-DC converter to block and/or pass the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle.
However, Meinert teaches the use of a DC-to-DC converter (20; Fig.1), and wherein the method further comprises controlling the DC-to-DC converter to block and/or pass the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Öhman to control the electric current as in Meinert to provide an adaptable method to better control current flow as desired between the vehicle and electric lines with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12: Öhman teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the connection and disconnection procedure comprises the connection and disconnection of the vehicle to/from the plurality of overhead electrical lines of an electric road system, wherein the connection and disconnection procedure comprises in response to a disconnect warning and if the vehicle is connected to the plurality of electrical lines, blocking the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to a powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0052]), and wherein the method comprises: maintaining the connection of the vehicle to the plurality of overhead electrical lines while the electric current received from the plurality of electrical lines is blocked from being supplied to the powertrain of the vehicle (Para.[0023]). Öhman does not teach the plurality of electrical lines being a plurality of overhead electrical lines.
However, Meinert teaches the use of a plurality of overhead electrical lines for use in an electric road system (Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Öhman to be used with an overhead electrical lines system as in Meinert since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Öhman in view of Noack (US 10300794 B2).
Regarding claim 11: Öhman teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises an interface for providing connection between the vehicle and the plurality of electrical lines (Fig.1). Öhman does not teach wherein the interface comprises an electrically operable switching device switchable between an open position and a closed position, wherein when the switching device is in the closed position the switching device is configured to allow the electric current to pass, and wherein when the switching device is in the open position the switching device is configured to interrupt the electric current, and wherein the method further comprises switching the switching device to the open or closed position to block and/or pass the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle.
However, Noack teaches wherein the interface comprises an electrically operable switching device switchable between an open position and a closed position, wherein when the switching device is in the closed position the switching device is configured to allow the electric current to pass, and wherein when the switching device is in the open position the switching device is configured to interrupt the electric current, and wherein the method further comprises switching the switching device to the open or closed position to block and/or pass the electric current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle (6; Fig.1 and Col.4, lines 37-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Öhman to include a switching device such as in Noack since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that Öhman does not teach or suggest that if the disconnect warning is not cleared within a time period, disconnecting the vehicle from the plurality of electrical lines while the electrical current from the plurality of electrical lines to the powertrain of the vehicle is blocked, Examiner submits that Öhman discloses, the vehicle calculating a time period until arriving at a charge segment that is disabled (i.e., a time period) to determine when charging should be terminated (i.e., current blocked) and when the charging component should be lifted above the ground (i.e., disconnection of the vehicle from the electric lines) (Para.[0052]); and according to Para.[0023], normal operations include shutting off electrical charging prior to lifting of the charging component. Further, Öhman discloses the current mode of charge segments changing from a disabled charge mode to an enabled charge mode during the previously calculated time period and instead decide to continue to electrically charge the energy storage of the vehicle (i.e., possible clearing of disconnection warning) (Para.[0055]).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding the predetermined time period referenced within Para.[0057]), the previous referenced citation of Para.[0057] was cited in reference to “such as when leaving last charge segment” as claimed within previous claim 7. See above updated rejections regarding amended limitations including “a time period” and provided reasoning above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights