DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
“one computing unit… adapted to check and see whether the actual physical location does or does not fulfill a physical access requirement” and “adapted to control the vehicle and move it automatically from the actual physical location to a selected charging station among the at least one charging station and automatically arrange it in a charging position”
8
A computing machine ([0009] recites a computing unit under machine control) or a terminal device [0044], and functional equivalents
“one output module is adapted to ask the driver to place the vehicle in a nominal physical location among at least one nominal physical location
8
Microphone or display [0028] and functional equivalents
“a communication system, which is adapted to exchange information between the vehicle, the output module, the at least one charging station and/or a computing unit of the charging park”
9
Radio-based or wireless system using antennas [0026]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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 1 recites “at least one charging station”, however, the prior recitation is “at least one electrical charging station”. Thus it is unclear whether the recitation refers to “at least one electrical charging station” or a distinct element. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitations as referring to the same element. Claim 8 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 8 recite “a physical access requirement” and then go on to recite “the access requirement”. The second “requirement” recitations thus do not have proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the access requirement” as “the physical access requirement”.
Claim 3 recites “on a demand”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which recites “asking the driver”. It is unclear if “on a demand” and “asking the driver” refer to the same action. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the two actions to be the same.
Claim 7 recites “in which the vehicle is situated at first in an original position outside the grounds of the charging park, and the performance of the charging process is initiated”. It isn’t clear whether the limitation of the vehicle being situated outside the charging park and the limitation of the “performance of the charging process is initiated” take place at the same time or at different times, and if they take place at the same time how that doesn’t contradict claim 1, which requires the vehicle to be situated on the grounds of the charging park before arranging the vehicle in a charging position.
Claim 9 recites “a computing unit of the charging park”. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 which recites “at least one computing unit”. It is not clear whether “a computing unit of the charging park” could/does refer to the same “at least one computing unit” of claim 8 or if it is distinct.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iida et al. US PGPUB 2024/0262229.
Regarding claim 1, Iida discloses a method for performing an electrical charging process for a vehicle in a charging park [pars. 21, 74 & 79-80; fig. 5; charging device 50 in parking space 91 (e.g. a commercial or home garage; par. 34)], the vehicle having at least one charging interface [fig. 1, 30; par. 18], while the charging park has at least one electrical charging station with at least one charging interface [fig. 5, 50; par. 74], the method comprising:
situating the vehicle in an actual physical location on the grounds of the charging park, and checking to see whether the actual physical location does or does not fulfill a physical access requirement to the at least one charging interface of the at least one charging station, and in the event that the access requirement is not fulfilled, asking the driver to place the vehicle in a nominal physical location, and in the event that the physical access requirement is fulfilled, automatically moving the vehicle from the actual physical location to a selected charging station among the at least one charging station and automatically arranging the vehicle in a charging position [fig. 9-10; par. 34, 52 & 157; a driver drives the vehicle near a parking space in a parking lot or at a home (pars. 34 & 52), thus “situating the vehicle in an actual physical location on the grounds” and then the distance from the known automatic “travel path” is determined; if the vehicle is close enough (physical access is fulfilled) then automatic parking can occur to align the vehicle with the power transmitter; if the vehicle is not close enough then the user is prompted to move the vehicle closer (to a nominal physical location)].
Regarding claim 2, Iida discloses in which in the event that the vehicle is situated in the charging position the at least one charging interface of the vehicle is connected to the at least one charging interface of the selected charging station and the charging process is carried out. [par. 22, 63, 77, 83 & 132; the parking occurs so that the distance between the charging device and reception device is minimized and contactless charging can be performed, the vehicle can be manually connected or electrically connected through inductive power transfer upon completion of the parking process].
Regarding claim 3, Iida discloses in which in the event that the vehicle needs to be arranged in the at least one nominal position based on a demand, the vehicle is moved by the driver from a current actual physical location to a new updated actual physical location [par. 157], and for the resulting updated actual physical location of the vehicle a check is done to see whether or not it fulfills the physical access requirement [par. 157; the vehicle’s current location and the “starting position” are indicated on the display along with an arrow indicating the direction the vehicle needs to be moved in, thus the check is continually performed and displayed on the screen].
Regarding claim 4, Iida discloses in which the actual physical location of the vehicle is dependent on an actual physical location of the vehicle on the grounds of the charging park and a current actual physical orientation of the vehicle within the grounds of the charging park and/or in which for the at least one nominal physical location of the vehicle there is provided at least one nominal physical position of the vehicle on the grounds of the charging park and at least one nominal physical orientation of the vehicle within the grounds of the charging park [fig. 5-6, 7 & 9; pars. 34, 39, 132-133 & 157; the physical location of the vehicle includes both the location and the orientation since the correct travel path for automatic parking/charging requires the vehicle to pull forward in front of the spot and then reverse in rather than simply turning left into the spot, so as to align the power receiver 30 located in the rear of the vehicle with the transmitter 50/500 in the rear of the parking spot]
Regarding claim 5, Iida discloses in which the at least one charging interface of the vehicle is situated in at least one interface position on an outer wall of the vehicle [fig. 1, power receiver 30 is on the bottom of the vehicle (the bottom wall)], the respective actual physical location of the vehicle being dependent on the at least one interface position of the at least one charging interface of the vehicle, and/or the at least one nominal physical location of the vehicle being dependent on the at least one interface position of the at least one charging interface of the vehicle and/or at least one interface position of the at least one charging interface of the at least one charging station [fig. 5-6, 7 & 9; pars. 34, 39, 132-133 & 157; the physical location of the vehicle includes both the location and the orientation since the correct travel path for automatic parking/charging requires the vehicle to pull forward in front of the spot and then reverse in rather than simply turning left into the spot, so as to align the power receiver 30 located in the rear of the vehicle with the transmitter 50/500 in the rear of the parking spot].
Regarding claim 6, Iida discloses in which the at least one nominal location and/or the charging position is provided depending on a power transmission element, wherein the at least one charging interface of the vehicle and the at least one charging interface of the selected charging station are connected to the at least one power transmission element [fig. 5-6, 7 & 9; pars. 34, 39, 132-133 & 157; the charging position is dependent on location of the transmitter 50/500 in the parking spot, hence why the vehicle’s charging position/nominal location require that the vehicle reverses into the spot to align the transmitter and receiver].
Regarding claim 7, Iida discloses in which the vehicle is situated at first in an original position outside the grounds of the charging park, and the performance of the charging process is initiated, the charging park being selected from among at least one charging park, and the vehicle is navigated from the original position to the charging park, and the vehicle is placed in the actual location on the grounds of the charging park. [pars. 3-5, 21, 34, 52, 80 & 157-158; the parking can be performed at a home or office, thus is a place to which the vehicle “travels”, thus the vehicle is first situated outside the “grounds of the charging park” when it hasn’t yet approached, and then it approaches the charging park, which was selected by the user by way of driving to said charging park (Examiner notes that no step is claimed which requires the user to select on an interface for example one charging park or another), and then the vehicle is guiding to the starting position, parked and charged].
Regarding claim 8, Iida discloses a system for performing an electrical charging process for a vehicle in a charging park [pars. 21, 74 & 79-80; fig. 5; charging device 50 in parking space 91 (e.g. a commercial or home garage; par. 34)], wherein the vehicle has at least one charging interface [fig. 1, 30; par. 18], while the charging park has at least one electrical charging station with at least one charging interface [fig. 5, 50; par. 74], wherein the vehicle is situated in an actual physical location on the grounds of the charging park [figs. 9-10; par. 34, 52 & 157; a driver drives the vehicle near a parking space in a parking lot or at a home (pars. 34 & 52), thus “situating the vehicle in an actual physical location on the grounds”], wherein the system comprises:
at least one sensor [fig. 1; vehicle sensors 15f and 15r; par. 28; in-vehicle camera 16, par. 69],
at least one computing unit [fig. 3, CPU 11A], and
at least one output module [fig. 2, display 120; par. 37],
wherein the at least one sensor is adapted to detect the actual physical location of the vehicle [pars. 28 & 69],
wherein the at least one computing unit is adapted to check and see whether the actual physical location does or does not fulfill a physical access requirement to the at least one charging interface of the at least one charging station, and in the event that the access requirement is not fulfilled the at least one output module is adapted to ask the driver to place the vehicle in a nominal physical location among at least one nominal physical location, and in the alternative event that the physical access requirement is fulfilled the at least one computing unit is adapted to control the vehicle and move it automatically from the actual physical location to a selected charging station among the at least one charging station and automatically arrange it in a charging position [fig. 9-10; par. 34, 52 & 157; a driver drives the vehicle near a parking space in a parking lot or at a home (pars. 34 & 52), thus “situating the vehicle in an actual physical location on the grounds” and then the distance from the known automatic “travel path” is determined; if the vehicle is close enough (physical access is fulfilled) then automatic parking can occur to align the vehicle with the power transmitter; if the vehicle is not close enough then the user is prompted to move the vehicle closer (to a nominal physical location); par. 43, the CPU 11A performs overall control of the parking assistance process].
Regarding claim 9, Iida discloses comprising a communication system, which is adapted to exchange information between the vehicle, the output module, the at least one charging station and/or a computing unit of the charging park. [fig. 3-4; various vehicle systems 11, including the output module (display 120) communicate via the bus 11H and to the charging park via the networking device 11F (communication system which uses wireless communication); pars. 45, 47, 49-51, 59 & 63].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bonfim et al. US PGPUB 20210316629 discloses a parking assist system for a charging system which checks to see if the vehicle meets accessibility requirements and if not moving the vehicle as necessary.
German Publication DE102013015348A1 discloses a parking assist system where a vehicle may be prompted to correct a course during automated parking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA 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.
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-GONGOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859