DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/062,396 filed on February 18, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-18 and 20-22 are still pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the remarks filed February 18, 2026, Applicant argues:
Applicants have further amended claim 1 with additional limitations (e.g., from claim 4) so that the cited references do not teach that the position controller is configured to output an updated position and an updated angle of the power receiver after performing the alignment control and that charging controller is configured to determine whether the alignment control is completed based on the updated position and the updated angle of the power receiver and to output a charging initiation request in response to a determination that the alignment control is completed.
Upward, cited with respect to claim 4, discloses initiating charging based on proximity signals exceeding a threshold value. However, Upward merely compares proximity signals with a threshold and cannot verify whether angle alignment has been completed through proximity signals alone.
In contrast, the position controller of the amended claim is configured to output both an updated position and updated angle information after alignment control. Moreover, the charging controller of the amended claim is configured to determine alignment completion based on both the position and angle information before outputting a charging initiation request, which is also not shown in Upward.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that monitoring the angle per se is already taught by Widmer (pars. 106-107 & 109-110), the missing piece is the updating of the position after alignment is performed, which is taught by Upward. Updating the position as taught by Upward would include updating the angle. Thus, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer et al. US PGPUB 2012/0262002 in view of Yoshida et al. US PGPUB 2012/0299373, and further in view of Upward et al. US PGPUB 2019/0283616.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 21, Widmer discloses an electrified vehicle charging system [fig. 1], the system comprising:
an actuator configured to maintain or change a vertical position, a horizontal position, or an angle of a power receiver provided in a vehicle [pars. 89, 91, 96-98, 104-105, 126 & 134; figs. 14A-14D, 20A-20C & 23A-23C; an actuator can be used to provide alignment of a power receiver with the power transmitter through rotation or other mechanical alignment]; and
a position controller configured to determine a relative position and a relative angle of the power receiver relative to a power transmitter provided outside of the vehicle through a sensor [pars. 89, 91, 96-98, 104-105, 120, 123, 126 & 134; the relative alignment of the transmitter and the receiver is detected using sensors (par. 66 & 96)] and to perform an alignment control between the power transmitter and the power receiver maintaining or changing the vertical position and the horizontal position of the power receiver using the actuator based on the relative position and the relative angle of the power receiver [pars. 89, 91, 96-98, 104-105, 120, 123, 126 & 134; based on the x-y position and/or angle, alignment control is performed].
Regarding claim 14, the method steps disclosed therein are deemed as being inherent in the assembly and operation of the prior art, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements as recited in the method claim, as pointed out in regards to claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Widmer does not explicitly disclose the alignment control maintains or changes the angle of the power receiver.
However, Yoshida discloses a vehicle charging system using wireless charging wherein the alignment control maintains or changes the angle of the power receiver [figs. 19-21; pars. 160-161 & 198; the angle of the power receiver can be changed in response to movement to keep the antennas parallel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Widmer to further include the alignment control maintains or changes the angle of the power receiver for the purpose of maintaining alignment in response to movement, as taught by Yoshida (pars. 160-161 & 198).
Though Widmer discloses determining the angle of the power receiver [pars. 106-107 & 109-110] but the combination of Widmer and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose wherein the position controller is configured to output an updated position of the power receiver after the alignment control is performed; and a charging controller configured to: determine whether the alignment control is completed based on the updated position and the updated angle of the power receiver: and output a charging initiation request in response to a determination that the alignment control is completed.
However, Upward discloses an electric vehicle charging system wherein the position controller is configured to output an updated position of the power receiver after the alignment control is performed [fig. 6B, after alignment is performed (a Y to step 358) and charging is started (step 372) the proximity (alignment) is monitored and if the positioning is no longer aligned (updated position is outputted) steps are taken; pars. 101, 120-122]; and a charging controller configured to: determine whether the alignment control is completed based on the updated position of the power receiver; and output a charging initiation request in response to a determination that the alignment control is completed [fig. 6B; after re-alignment is performed (step 376 returns to beginning and alignment is performed in step 359) a charge initiation request is output (the radio address of the vehicle, which acts to initiate charging on the vehicle side); pars. 101 & 120-122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Widmer and Yoshida to further include wherein the position controller is configured to output an updated position of the power receiver after the alignment control is performed; and a charging controller configured to: determine whether the alignment control is completed based on the updated position of the power receiver: and output a charging initiation request in response to a determination that the alignment control is completed for the purpose of correcting alignment of the vehicle to improve charging, as taught by Upward (par. 120).
Regarding claim 21, Widmer discloses the vehicle [fig. 1, 102].
Regarding claims 2 and 15-17, Widmer discloses further comprising a charging controller configured to output an alignment control performance request when alignment control preparation is completed by checking whether the alignment control preparation is completed, wherein the position controller is configured to perform the alignment control in response to the alignment control performance request being outputted [par. 96; a detection of misalignment (by a controller 172/174 of system 200; fig. 3; pars. 64 & 66) occurs during coupling (the detection could be considered outputting an alignment control performance request, and the measuring of the alignment could be considered the alignment control preparation) which results in an adjustment of position (alignment control by a controller 168/170 as part of system 200; pars. 64, 66 & 96)].
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Widmer discloses wherein the charging controller is configured to determine whether the alignment control preparation is completed based on a distance between the vehicle and the power transmitter [pars. 96-99; the alignment control preparation could be considered the measurement of alignment, and the detection (result) is the alignment request if it indicates misalignment].
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Widmer discloses determining the angle of the power receiver [pars. 106-107 & 109-110] but the combination of Widmer and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging controller is configured to: after charging is initiated, determine whether there is a change in an alignment state of the power receiver based on an additional determination of a current position of the power receiver; and output an additional alignment control performance request in response to a determination that there is the change in the alignment state of the power receiver, wherein the position controller is configured to perform an additional alignment control in response to the additional alignment control performance request being outputted.
However, Upward further discloses wherein the charging controller is configured to: after charging is initiated, determine whether there is a change in an alignment state of the power receiver based on an additional determination of a current position of the power receiver [fig. 6B, after alignment is performed (a Y to step 358) and charging is started (step 372) the proximity (alignment) is monitored and if the positioning is no longer aligned (updated position is outputted) steps are taken; pars. 101, 120-122]; and output an additional alignment control performance request in response to a determination that there is the change in the alignment state of the power receiver, wherein the position controller is configured to perform an additional alignment control in response to the additional alignment control performance request being outputted [fig. 6B; if there is a significant change in alignment beyond a threshold than an additional alignment control performance request is output (a signal to stop energy transmission), and alignment is performed in step 358; pars. 101 & 120-122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Widmer and Yoshida to further include wherein the charging controller is configured to: after charging is initiated, determine whether there is a change in an alignment state of the power receiver based on an additional determination of a current position of the power receiver; and output an additional alignment control performance request in response to a determination that there is the change in the alignment state of the power receiver, wherein the position controller is configured to perform an additional alignment control in response to the additional alignment control performance request being outputted for the purpose of correcting alignment of the vehicle to improve charging, as taught by Upward (par. 120).
Regarding claim 6, Widmer discloses wherein the charging controller is provided in the vehicle [fig. 3, BEV-CU 170; pars. 63-65 & 120; 170 controls charging or interfaces to a vehicle charging controller (par. 63)].
Regarding claim 7, Widmer discloses wherein the sensor is provided at one or more points of the power receiver [fig. 19; par. 124; the vehicle receiver system with a plurality of sensors 1904-1908].
Regarding claim 8, Widmer discloses wherein the sensor is provided at one or more points of the power transmitter [par. 64; charging base alignment module 176; fig. 3].
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Widmer discloses wherein the sensor comprises a camera, a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or an electromagnetic sensor [par. 84].
Regarding claim 10, Widmer does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is connected at six or more points of an upper portion of the power receiver.
However, Admitted Prior Art discloses wherein the actuator is connected at six or more points of an upper portion of the power receiver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Widmer to further include wherein the actuator is connected at six or more points of an upper portion of the power receiver for the purpose of maximizing the ability to adjust positions, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the above limitation of claim 10 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed August 12, 2025. Applicant did not traverse or did not adequately traverse. Thus, the limitation is being treated as taught by admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 11, Widmer discloses wherein the actuator includes a spring, a rail, or a motor [par. 105, motor].
Regarding claim 13, Widmer discloses wherein the position controller is provided in the vehicle controller [172/174 of system 200; fig. 3; pars. 64 & 66].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer et al. US PGPUB 2012/0262002 in view of Yoshida et al. US PGPUB 2012/0299373, further in view of Upward et al. US PGPUB 2019/0283616 and further in view of Greenwood et al. US PGPUB 2015/0360577.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Widmer and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator comprises a suspension of the vehicle.
However, Greenwood discloses an inductive electric vehicle charging system wherein the actuator comprises a suspension of the vehicle [pars. 12, 35 & 40; the vehicle suspension is adjusted to adjust the gap between the vehicle charging receiver and the transmitter].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Widmer and Yoshida to further include wherein the actuator comprises a suspension of the vehicle for the purpose of controlling the gap between the vehicle and the charger, as taught by Greenwood (par. 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859