DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/062,396 filed on June 11, 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, 5-14, 17 and 20-27 are still pending, with claims 1, 5-6, 14, 17 and 20-21 being currently amended, and claims 23-27 being newly added. Claims 2-4, 15-16 and 18-19 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
On pages 9-11 of the remarks filed June 11, 2026, Applicant argues:
Nothing in Widmer, Yoshida, Upward, or Greenwood, whether taken alone or in a proper combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests at least these claim features.
In this response, Applicants have amended independent claim 14 to generally include the features of dependent claims 15 and 16. The non-final action purports to modify Widmer's actuator-driven vertical and horizontal alignment of the power receiver with the angle alignment taught by Yoshida and the updated-position output and alignment-completion-gated charging initiation of Upward to render claims 15 and 16 unpatentable. Non-final action at pgs. 4-6; Widmer, [0109], [0110], [0120]; Yoshida, [o16o]-[o161]; Upward, [0120], [0121]. Applicants respectfully disagree.
In the Widmer-Yoshida-Upward combination, Widmer discloses a "system [that] may be initially configured to operate in an 'approach phase"' as a vehicle approaches a parking area. Widmer, [o11o]; Fig. 15A. Widmer also discloses that "when the BEV 102 is within range of the charging base 104," the system transitions to what Widmer refers to as a "landing phase." Widmer, [o11o]; Fig. 15B. Widmer further discloses that, during the landing phase, "the BEV 102 may begin to eccentrically rotate the BEV antenna 118" to align with the charging base. Id. Widmer explains that "BEV control circuit 170 may be configured to provide an alignment signal to control operation of an actuator..." Widmer, [0126]; Fig. 19. However, nothing in these or any other portion of Widmer discloses outputting the claimed "alignment control performance request."
Instead, Widmer teaches that the landing phase is implicitly entered when the vehicle's position crosses a fixed radius, which is measured from the center of the charging base. Widmer, [0136]; Fig. 20B. Even assuming that some signal is issued by Widmer upon theHYU-1
transition to the landing phase, this signal cannot be an "alignment control performance request." This is because amended independent claim 14 requires the "alignment control performance request" to be generated "in response to a determination that the alignment control preparation is completed." Because the signal issued by Widmer's system upon the transition to the "landing phase" is issued in response to a determination that a vehicle crosses a fixed radius from the charging base and not "in response to a determination that the alignment control preparation is completed," Widmer's signal issued upon transition to the "landing phase" cannot be an "alignment control performance request," as claimed. Nothing in Yoshida and Upward remedies the deficiencies of Widmer. Therefore, the Widmer-Yoshida-Upward combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "generating an alignment control performance request in response to a determination that the alignment control preparation is completed," as claimed.
Moreover, lacking any disclosure of "generating an alignment control performance request in response to a determination that the alignment control preparation is completed," Widmer cannot (and does not) disclose "performing an alignment control..." in response to the alignment control performance request, as claimed. Nothing in Yoshida and Upward remedies the deficiencies of Widmer. Therefore, the Widmer-Yoshida-Upward combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "in response to the alignment control performance request, performing an alignment control...," as claimed.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of amended independent claim 14 under § 103.
Independent claim 1 and 21 have been amended to include features that correspond to the features of amended independent claim 14 discussed above. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of amended independent claims 1 and 21 under § 103 for at least the same reasons set forth with respect to amended independent claim 14.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejections have been updated in accordance with the claim amendments. While Examiner agrees that Widmer teaches an approach and landing phase, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s implication that the Widmer does not teach alignment control preparation or the alignment control performance request. Indeed, as more fully explained in the updated claim rejections below, the approach/landing portion of Widmer’s method is the alignment control preparation, and the activation of the actuator(s) which actually performs the alignment by adjusting the position of the BEV receiver device is the alignment control request. Applicant’s arguments about the transition into the landing phase not being the “request” do not hold weight, because Examiner is not making this argument, rather it is the transition into the alignment phase which requires a signal to activate the actuator (actuators are electro-mechanical devices which produce mechanical force in response to electrical signals) that corresponds too the alignment control performance request.
Examiner notes in particular paragraph 95, which states that “fine” alignment using physical adjustments of the BEV antenna occurs after the positioning of the BEV 112 “in proximity” to the charging base.
Examiner further notes that the updated rejections are in response to the claim amendments, including the “generating” of the alignment control performance request.
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, 5-11, 13-14, 17, 20-23 and 25-27 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)];
in response to an alignment control performance request, 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, 95-98, 104-105, 120, 123, 126 & 134; based on the x-y position and/or angle, alignment control is performed, this alignment occurs based on signals activating the actuators, see below with respect to the generation of the request]
a charging controller configured to:
determine whether an alignment control preparation is completed based on a distance between the vehicle and the power transmitter [pars. 95 & 109-110; figs. 15A-15C; based on when the vehicle reaches a proximity/range to the charging based, thus based on a distance between the vehicle and the transmitter, it is determined that the initial alignment is over (“positioning”/”landing”/”approach”) and thus the “alignment control preparation” is over and fine alignment begins];
in response to determining that the alignment control preparation is completed, generating the alignment control performance request [par. 95-97, 105 & 126; “mechanisms may be employed for fine alignment”…”upon positioning a BEV 112 in proximity to a charging base 104”, thus once the control prep is completed mechanisms are employed, this “employment” of automatic position adjustment using actuators (par. 96) is the request and execution, the activation of the actuators with control signals (par. 126, generating the alignment signal using a control circuit) being the request and the physical execution the “performance”].
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 claim 17, Widmer discloses further comprising wherein determining whether the alignment control preparation is completed and generating the alignment control performance request are performed by a charging controller, and wherein performing the alignment control is performed by a position controller [fig. 3 & 19; par. 95-96 & 124-126; controller 170 of the BEV is a charging controller (par. 65) and determines when the alignment phase is entered (landing/positioning is over; par. 120, 170 controls guidance to the driver for landing/positioning as well as alignment) and thus when prep is completed, 170 also generates the signal to the actuator; the actuator in conjunction with the DSP 1920 performs the actual physical alignment control and thus could be considered the position controller (the DSP could also be considered the position controller since it is provides the direction and position signals that are used for performing the alignment; pars. 124-126)].
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 generate 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.
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 generate 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 generate 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 claims 10 and 23, 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].
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Widmer and Yoshida does not explicitly disclose determining whether a communication connection between the vehicle and the power transmitter is completed prior to determining whether the alignment control preparation is completed.
However, Upward further discloses determining whether a communication connection between the vehicle and the power transmitter is completed prior to determining whether the alignment control preparation is completed [fig. 6, steps 366-370; before energy is transmitted for charging (step 372) it is ensured that the radios are paired; pars. 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 determining whether a communication connection between the vehicle and the power transmitter is completed prior to determining whether the alignment control preparation is completed for the purpose of allowing communication over a protocol which requires pairing such as Bluetooth and Zigbee, as taught by Upward (par. 66).
Regarding claim 26, Widmer discloses detecting, by the sensor, the relative position and the relative angle of the power receiver during performance of the alignment control [pars. 89, 91, 95-98, 104-107, 109-110, 120, 123, 126 & 134; based on the x-y position and/or angle, alignment control is performed, this alignment occurs based on signals activating the actuators, see below with respect to the generation of the request].
Widmer does not explicitly disclose the detection is continuously performed.
However, Upward as applied in claim 14 discloses the detection is continuously performed [pars. 101, 104 & 120-122; the detection of the relative position of the vehicle is continuously performed].
Regarding claim 27, Upward, as applied in claim 14, discloses comprising transmitting power wirelessly from the power transmitter to the power receiver in response to the outputting of the charging initiation request [fig. 6B; after alignment is performed (after 358) or re-performed (after 374) power is transmitted (step 372) after the charge initiation request (the sending of the receiver’s radio address in step 370); pars. 120-122].
Claims 12 and 24 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 claims 12 and 24, 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
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 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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
Prosecution Insights