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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/139,144 filed on 04/25/2023 in which claims 1-10 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/25/2023 has been considered and placed of record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-8 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.
Claim 4 recites the underlined limitations of, “A charging infrastructure for performing electrical charging processes for vehicles, comprising: at least one inductive charging interface, wherein the charging parking lot has multiple inductive charging zones,…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitations in the claim.
Claims 5-8 depend directly from claim 4 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons since they carry the same deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-4,7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loewel et al., (Loewel) “Identification and Positioning System for Inductive Charging Systems”.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 9: Loewel at least discloses and shows in Figs. 3-6: A charging parking lot(which is also construed to be a charging infrastructure, as per claim 4)(see Fig. 3(I) and (II) for performing an electrical charging process for a vehicle, comprising: at least one inductive charging interface(primary coil depicted as (d); see Fig. 3), wherein the charging parking lot has multiple inductive charging zones(labeled as (j); see Fig. 5), and each charging zone is either activatable(ta) or deactivatable(td)(see page 5, LHS column, lines 1 to RHS column, line 12 and Fig. 6), wherein the vehicle is to be parked on the charging parking lot to perform the charging process(see optimal parked vehicle in Fig. 4(II); see page 4, LHS column, lines 1-5), wherein only that at least one charging zone(primary coil (d); see Fig. 3(I)) of the charging parking lot is to be activated(by charging control system (d))note-with the help of the speed data (Vev) of the target vehicle the control system calculates the exact timestamps for activation(ta) and deactivation (td) of the following segment including the primary coil) which is situated directly beneath the at least one inductive charging interface(labeled as secondary coil c in Fig. 3) of the vehicle, and wherein the at least one activated charging zone(primary coil d)(see Fig. 3) is adapted to generate a magnetic field for the transfer of electrical energy to the at least one inductive charging interface(secondary coil c in Fig. 3) of the vehicle(see page 3, LHS column and RHS column under the heading III. Static Inductive charging system)).
Regarding claim 3, Loewel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Loewel discloses, further comprising at least one sensor(position of antenna (Ln)), wherein the at least one sensor is adapted to detect which at least one charging zone(labeled as j in Fig. 5) is situated directly beneath the at least one inductive charging interface of the vehicle(labeled as I in Fig. 5)(see also Fig. 6 and (RHS column of page 4 and LHS column of page 5).
Regarding claim 7, Loewel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4. Loewel discloses, further comprising at least one communication module, which is adapted to communicate with a vehicle, with a terminal device of a user of a vehicle and/or with a server(see page 1; LHS column; third paragraph; RHS column, third paragraph)(Fig. 6 illustrates several distances which have to be known by the control system for the calculation process. The important data e.g. the coil positions (Mn) and size (d) as well as the antenna and transponder positions relative to the primary or secondary coil position are probably stored locally or in a remote database; see page 4, RHS column, third paragraph).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewel et al., (Loewel) “Identification and Positioning System for Inductive Charging Systems” in view of Yao et al., (Yao) USPAT 10,110,070 B2.
Regarding claim 2, Loewel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly discloses the limitations of:
wherein the charging zones are arranged in lattice pattern in a subfloor.
However, Yan discloses factual evidence of, a wireless power transmitter with array of transmit coils arranged in lattice pattern which may be selected by the user to be hexagonal, rectangular, octagonal, or any other suitable pattern.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parking lot inductive charging system of Loewel to have, wherein the charging zones are arranged in lattice pattern in a subfloor, as recited, so as to improve the efficiency of the power transfer while optimizing the magnetic flux, enabling higher efficiency and better performance over longer, variable distances.
Accordingly claim 2 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 5,6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loewel et al., (Loewel) “Identification and Positioning System for Inductive Charging Systems” in view of Mackler et al., (Mackler) US 2015/0113987 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Loewel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4 but fails to expressly discloses the limitations of:
further comprising a canopy for the at least one charging parking lot.
However, Mackler discloses factual evidence of, further comprising a parking lot that includes a plurality of solar canopy systems, wherein each of the solar canopy systems captures solar energy; and a retail space located on the parking lot that receives the captured solar energy from at least one of the plurality of solar canopy systems(see [0010],[0012],[0016]; see Figs. 5-6).
Loewel and Mackler are energy distribution and power transfer system analogous art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loewel with the teachings of Mackler by having the charging parking lot further comprising, a canopy for the at least one charging parking lot, as recited, for the advantages of, providing cars and people with protection from weather related elements such as snow, rain, and sun, wherein electricity produced by the photovoltaic carport can be used or sold back to the grid, as taught by Mackler ([0016]).
Accordingly claim 5 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Loewel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4 but fails to expressly discloses the limitations of:
further comprising solar cells and at least one storage battery, wherein the solar cells are adapted to convert light into electrical energy, wherein the at least one storage battery is adapted to store the electrical energy of the solar cells and provide it to at least one vehicle when performing a charging process.
Mackler teaches factual evidence of, further comprising solar cells(see photovoltaic modules on the canopies 2805; see Figs. 28-29, [0155]) and at least one storage battery(1210)([0105],[0135]), wherein the solar cells are adapted to convert light into electrical energy(as per definition and the function of PV panels), wherein the at least one storage battery(1210)(see [0105] and Fig. 12) is adapted to store the electrical energy of the solar cells and provide it to at least one vehicle when performing a charging process(note- Computing device 2710 can, for example, be used to present sensor data and provide instructions for directing stored energy (e.g., transmit electrical energy from a storage battery to an electric vehicle charging station; see [0132],[0155]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loewel with the teachings of Mackler by having the charging parking lot further comprising solar cells and at least one storage battery, wherein the solar cells are adapted to convert light into electrical energy, wherein the at least one storage battery is adapted to store the electrical energy of the solar cells and provide it to at least one vehicle when performing a charging process so as to provide an integrated renewable energy and asset system, as per the teachings of Mackler ([0105],[0132],[0155]).
Accordingly claim 6 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Loewel discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 4 but fails to expressly discloses the limitations of:
further comprising at least one lighting fixture.
Mackler discloses factual evidence of, a parking lot further comprising at least one lighting fixture([0010]).
It would have to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loewel with the teachings of Mackler by having the charging parking lot further comprising at least one lighting fixture, as recited, in order to receive the captured solar energy from at least one of the plurality of renewable energy and thereby provide adequate illumination and site security to the parking lot of the building, as per the teachings of Mackler ([0024]).
Accordingly claim 8 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, among other patentable steps, further comprising deactivating at least one further charging zone situated next to a projection of the at least one inductive charging interface of the vehicle on the charging parking lot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 February 5, 2026