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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 10/18/22 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It should include features such as “wireless charging modules for non-wireless charging capable vehicles.”
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3-5 are blurry and too dark (photocopy of seemingly photograph-like features are always dark and in low resolution). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)/first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without having at least the means of wirelessly charging non-wireless charging capability vehicles, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
As the claims are currently presented, there is no nexus between “deploying power wireless chargers” and “vehicles that do not have wireless charging capability.” In other words, deploying wireless chargers to vehicles without wireless chargers does not imply the vehicles or the chargers somehow able to communicate and to provide power from the chargers to the vehicle batteries. The claims are required to explicitly claim the “pathway.” The specification on page 39 demonstrates that having the deployed wireless power chargers 520 affixed to the charging ports of those vehicles (i.e. vehicles without wireless charging capability (the third group)) is an essential nexus that is not reflected in these claims. Hence, these claims are incomplete. For example, adding the limitations of at least claim 3 into claim 1 would overcome this rejection. Similar amendment would apply to the other sets of claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, the limitation “charging each vehicle of the group of vehicles” on line 6 is unclear because it fails to identify whether “the group of vehicles” is the group with wireless charging capability or the group with non-wireless charging capability or both groups. Too many references to “group of vehicles” exacerbates this confusion.
Re claim 2, the limitation “the determination” on line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claims 3-6, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 7, the syntax of the claim sounds confusing especially in the phrase “identifying one of the group of vehicles to land the power supply module.”
Re claims 8-10, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 11, the claim is missing the term “non-transitory.” In addition, the limitation “charging each vehicle of the group of vehicles” on line 10 is unclear because it fails to identify whether “the group of vehicles” is the group with wireless charging capability or the group with non-wireless charging capability or both groups. Too many references to “group of vehicles” exacerbates this confusion.
Re claim 12, the limitation “the determination” on line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claims 13-16, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 17, the syntax of the claim sounds confusing especially in the phrase “identifying one of the group of vehicles to land the power supply module.”
Re claims 18 and 19, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 20, the claim is missing the term “non-transitory.” In addition, the limitation “charging each vehicle of the group of vehicles” on the third line from bottom is unclear because it fails to identify whether “the group of vehicles” is the group with wireless charging capability or the group with non-wireless charging capability or both groups. Too many references to “group of vehicles” exacerbates this confusion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) OR 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and second paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Note: In order to overcome the first paragraph or 112(a), Applicant has to amend the claims per explanation above to put them in allowable status.
The art made of record fails to disclose or suggest a method/system/non-transitory computer product having at least, identifying a group of vehicles having non-wireless charging capability out of a group of vehicles, deploying wireless chargers to said group of vehicles and charging these group of vehicles via attaching the wireless chargers to the charging ports of said vehicles while they are in motion. Moreover, charging delivery is via UAVs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited in PTO-892 all teaches charging vehicles via wireless charging technology while in-motion. However, these vehicles are have wireless charging technology built-in.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087