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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated May 30, 2023, claims 1-17 are pending.
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 1-7 and 14-17 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 the limitation "the arm" in lines 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the fixed-length arm” as recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the arm" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the fixed-length arm” as recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 2 and claim 4 recites the limitation "the tire blocks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the pair of extendable tire blocks” as recited in claim 1, line 3.
Claim 4 and claim 5 recites the limitation "the arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the fixed-length arm” as recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tire blocks" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the pair of tire blocks” as recited in claim 14, line 2.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the tire blocks" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the pair of tire blocks” as recited in claim 14, line 2.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be amended to “the fixed-length arm” as recited in claim 14, line 4.
Claims 3, 6-7, 15 and 17 are rejected due to their dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN116101092A in view of Chase US20240308370A1 and Tart US5096021A.
Regarding claim 1. Chen discloses a wireless automotive battery charger (Abstract) comprising:
a housing (FIG. 1);
a pair of extendable tire blocks (204) at least partially contained by the housing (the telescopic block is part of the housing FIG. 1);
a fixed-length arm (801) disposed between the tire blocks (FIG. 1) and hingedly arranged with the housing (the transmission rod 802 rotates on the surface of the fixed shaft sleeve 801);
a charge pad (adjusting plate 805 surface of the coil base 807) hingedly mounted with the arm (page 6 line 7-9 - ”the transmission rod 802 rotates on the surface of the fixed shaft sleeve 801, drives the swinging rod 803 to swing, at the same time drives the swinging rod 803 one end surface of the turning rod 804 and the turning adjusting plate 805”); and
rotation of the arm to a predetermined position elevates the charge pad relative to the ground and aligns the charge pad adjacent to a charge coil of the vehicle (page 5, lines 11-12 - ”so as to realize when facing the different chassis position of the storage battery, can be wireless charging operation”).
Chen does not explicitly teach a controller programmed, after receiving configuration information from a vehicle, to extend the tire blocks relative to the housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information.
Chase discloses a controller (28) programmed, after receiving configuration information from a vehicle (¶41 – using information from the VIN to access at least one physical dimension of the vehicle 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide controlled automation according to the vehicle specific information, as taught by Chase, to the system of Chen in order to allow for the differences in types of vehicles and variance in vehicular dimensions to provide accurate charging coil alignment (Chase; ¶5).
Chase does not explicitly disclose to extend the tire blocks relative to the housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information.
Tart discloses a controller (main control valve 50) programmed to extend the tire blocks (40) relative to the housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information (column 3, lines 41-56 – tire pressure causes the main control 5 to move the chock 40 to an extended or retracted position – the pressure being configuration information as the pressure provides a signal to the control 50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Chen in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Chen, which could cause damage to the system of Chen (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Regarding claim 2. Chen discloses that after contact between tires of the vehicle and the tire blocks that prevents the vehicle from further moving towards the housing, rotate the arm to the predetermined position (page 5, third paragraph - “when the vehicle travels above the base main body 201 through the front wheel the telescopic block 204 and the telescopic block 206 is, so as to push the telescopic block 206 pressing motor button 207 to make the adjusting motor 4 to work”).
Chen does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to perform the function.
Tart discloses a computer that controls the tire blocks (column 3, lines 41-56).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Chen in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Chen, which could cause damage to the system of Chen (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Regarding claim 4. Chen discloses that after completion of charge (i.e. – after the vehicle leaves), retract the tire blocks toward the housing and rotate the arm towards the ground (page 5, paragraphs 2-3 - in order for the vehicle to leave, the arm must be rotated to the ground and the blocks are able to move to their original position using the compression spring and the motor button 207).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a controller programed to retract and rotate.
Tart discloses a controller (main control valve 50) programmed to extend the tire blocks (40) relative to the housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information (column 3, lines 41-56 – tire pressure causes the main control 5 to move the chock 40 to an extended or retracted position – the pressure being configuration information as the pressure provides a signal to the control 50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Chen in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Chen, which could cause damage to the system of Chen (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Regarding claim 6. Chen does not explicitly disclose that the configuration information includes ride height of the vehicle.
Chase discloses that the configuration information includes ride height of the vehicle (¶41 – the VIN includes at least one physical dimension which includes the z-direction or the height).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide controlled automation according to the vehicle specific information, as taught by Chase, to the system of Chen in order to allow for the differences in types of vehicles and variance in vehicular dimensions to provide accurate charging coil alignment (Chase; ¶5).
Regarding claim 7. Chen does not explicitly teach that the predetermined position is based on the configuration information.
Chase discloses that the predetermined position is based on the configuration information (¶41 – “Using the information from the VIN to access at least one physical dimension of an electric vehicle 10 and its components, a controller 28 can easily resolve an X-Y mounting position of the receiving induction coil 16 of the electric vehicle 10 based on the position and angle of a single tire, or the location of a pair of tires 34 of the electric vehicle 10, such as the front tires vehicle for example”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide controlled automation according to the vehicle specific information, as taught by Chase, to the system of Chen in order to allow for the differences in types of vehicles and variance in vehicular dimensions to provide accurate charging coil alignment (Chase; ¶5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN116101092A in view of Chase US20240308370A1 and Tart US5096021A in further view of Patel US20120098483A1.
Regarding claim 3. Although Chen disclose that charging does not begin until the vehicle is properly aligned, Chen does not explicitly teach that after the extending, instruct the vehicle to move towards the housing.
Tart discloses a controller 50 extending the chock 40 according to received pressure (column 3, lines 41-56).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Chen in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Chen, which could cause damage to the system of Chen (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Patel discloses that instructing the vehicle to move toward the housing (¶25 – control system provides guidance information to direct movement of the vehicle in the direction of the location of the inductive charging - this occurs before the charging begins).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the alignment of Patel to the charging system of Chen in order to ensure proper alignment between the transmitter and the receiver for optimal charging (Patel; ¶2-3)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN116101092A in view of Chase US20240308370A1 and Tart US5096021A in further view of Baarman et al. US20110181240A1.
Regarding claim 5. Chen discloses that the charge pad (87) is hingedly mounted with the arm (801) (FIG. 5 – charging plate 805 is rotated via turning rod 804 which is connected to the shaft 801)
Chen does not explicitly teach that the charge pad remains parallel to the ground during rotation of the arm.
Baarman teaches that the charge pad (110) remains parallel to the ground during rotation of the arm (see FIGS. 7A-B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the parallel charging pad of Baarman to the system of Chen in order to adapt to a different location of the charging coil of the vehicle.
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. US20110181240A1 in view Tart US5096021A .
Regarding claim 8. Baarman discloses a method comprising:
Baarman discloses tire blocks (50”) such that rotation of an arm (FIG. 7A – bar that extends between chocks 50”) disposed between the tire blocks (FIG. 7A – bar that extends between chocks 50”) to a predetermined position (FIG. 7B) elevates a charge pad (110) relative to the ground and aligns the charge pad (110) adjacent to a charge coil (252) of the vehicle (150”) without altering a length of the arm (FIG. 7A/B).
Baarman does not explicitly disclose that responsive to receiving configuration information from a vehicle, extending tire blocks away from a housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information.
Tart discloses responsive to receiving configuration information from a vehicle, extending tire blocks (40) away from a housing (26) and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information (column 3, lines 41-56 – tire pressure causes the main control 5 to move the chock 40 to an extended or retracted position – the pressure being configuration information as the pressure provides a signal to the control 50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Baarman in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Chen, which could cause damage to the system of Chen (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Regarding claim 9. Baarman discloses that responsive to contact between tires of the vehicle and the tire blocks that prevents the vehicle from further moving towards the housing, rotating the arm to the predetermined position (FIGS 7A/B; ¶97 – when the front wheels enter the wheel chocks 50”, the levers cause the crossbar 94 to be rotated, raising the charging coil).
Regarding claim 14. Baarman discloses an automotive battery charger (FIGS. 7A/B) comprising:
a pair of tire blocks (50”),
after contact between tires of the vehicle (200) and the tire blocks (50”) (FIG. 7A/B; ¶94 - car drives onto wheel chocks), rotate a fixed-length arm (crossbar 94) relative to the ground to elevate a charge pad (110) attached to an end thereof to a predetermined position that is based on the configuration such that the charge pad is aligned adjacent to a charge coil of the vehicle (FIG. 7B; ¶94 – primary coil 110 is brought into proper charging alignment with the secondary coil 252).
Baarman does not explicitly disclose a controller programmed to extend a pair of tire blocks relative to a housing and along ground to a location that is based on configuration information from a vehicle
Tart discloses a controller (main control valve 50) programmed to extend the tire blocks (40) relative to a housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information (column 3, lines 41-56 – tire pressure causes the main control 5 to move the chock 40 to an extended or retracted position – the pressure being configuration information as the pressure provides a signal to the control 50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Baarman in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Baarman, which could cause damage to the system of Baarman (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. US20110181240A1 in view Tart US5096021A and further in view of Patel US20120098483A1.
Regarding claim 10. Although Baarman discloses that charging does not begin until the vehicle is properly aligned on the wheel chock (FIG. 7A/B), Baarman does not explicitly disclose that after the extending, instructing the vehicle to move towards the housing.
Tart discloses a controller 50 extending the chock 40 according to received pressure (column 3, lines 41-56).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Baarman in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Baarman, which could cause damage to the system of Baarman (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Patel discloses that instructing the vehicle to move toward the housing (¶25 – control system provides guidance information to direct movement of the vehicle in the direction of the location of the inductive charging - this occurs before the charging begins).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the alignment of Patel to the charging system of Baarman in order to ensure proper alignment between the transmitter and the receiver for optimal charging (Patel; ¶2-3)
Regarding claim 15. Although Baarman discloses that charging does not begin until the vehicle is properly aligned on the wheel chock (FIG. 7A/B), Baarman does not explicitly disclose that the controller is further programmed to, after the extending instruct the vehicle to move toward the housing.
Tart discloses a controller 50 extending the chock 40 according to received pressure (column 3, lines 41-56).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Baarman in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Baarman, which could cause damage to the system of Baarman (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Tart does not explicitly disclose that the controller is further programmed to instruct the vehicle to move toward the housing.
Patel discloses that the controller is further programmed to instruct the vehicle to move toward the housing (¶25 – control system provides guidance information to direct movement of the vehicle in the direction of the location of the inductive charging - this occurs before the charging begins).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the alignment of Patel to the charging system of Baarman in order to ensure proper alignment between the transmitter and the receiver for optimal charging (Patel; ¶2-3).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. US20110181240A1 in view Tart US5096021A and further in view of Chen et al. CN116101092A.
Regarding claim 11. Baarman discloses that responsive to completion of charge, rotating the arm towards the ground (FIG. 7A/B – when the vehicle leaves after charging is complete, the arm is lowered back to the ground).
Baarman does not explicitly teach that responsive to completion of charge, retracting the tire blocks toward the housing.
Chen discloses that responsive to completion of charge (i.e. – after the vehicle leaves), retract the tire blocks toward the housing (page 5, 2nd paragraph - in order for the vehicle to leave, the arm must be rotated to the ground and the blocks are able to move to their original position using the compression spring and the motor button 207).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a retractable block in order to allow for flexible charging for different vehicles (Chen; page 2 – background).
Regarding claim 16. Baarman discloses that after completion of charge, rotate the arm towards the ground (FIG. 7A/B – when the vehicle leaves after charging is complete, the arm is lowered back to the ground).
Baarman does not explicitly teach that the controller is further programmed to, after completion of charge, retract the tire blocks toward the housing.
Tart discloses a controller (main control valve 50) programmed to extend the tire blocks (40) relative to the housing and along ground to a location that is based on the configuration information (column 3, lines 41-56 – tire pressure causes the main control 5 to move the chock 40 to an extended or retracted position – the pressure being configuration information as the pressure provides a signal to the control 50).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tire chock system of Tart to Baarman in order to prevent a vehicle to be pulled away while being fueled, or charged in the case of Baarman, which could cause damage to the system of Baarman (Column 1, lines 22-55).
Tart does not explicitly teach after completion of charge, retract the tire blocks toward the housing.
Chen discloses that responsive to completion of charge (i.e. – after the vehicle leaves), retract the tire blocks toward the housing (page 5, second paragraph - in order for the vehicle to leave, the arm must be rotated to the ground and the blocks are able to move to their original position using the compression spring and the motor button 207).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a retractable block in order to allow for flexible charging for different vehicles (Chen; page 2 – background).
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. US20110181240A1 in view Tart US5096021A and further in view of Chase US20240308370A1.
Regarding claim 12. Baarman does not explicitly disclose that the configuration information includes ride height of the vehicle.
Chase discloses that the configuration information includes ride height of the vehicle (¶41 – the VIN includes at least one physical dimension which includes the z-direction or the height).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide controlled automation according to the vehicle specific information, as taught by Chase, to the system of Baarman in order to allow for the differences in types of vehicles and variance in vehicular dimensions to provide accurate charging coil alignment (Chase; ¶5).
Regarding claim 13. Baarman does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined position is based on the configuration information.
Chase discloses that the predetermined position is based on the configuration information (¶41 – “Using the information from the VIN to access at least one physical dimension of an electric vehicle 10 and its components, a controller 28 can easily resolve an X-Y mounting position of the receiving induction coil 16 of the electric vehicle 10 based on the position and angle of a single tire, or the location of a pair of tires 34 of the electric vehicle 10, such as the front tires vehicle for example”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide controlled automation according to the vehicle specific information, as taught by Chase, to the system of Baarman in order to allow for the differences in types of vehicles and variance in vehicular dimensions to provide accurate charging coil alignment (Chase; ¶5).
Regarding claim 17. Baarman does not explicitly disclose that the configuration information includes ride height of the vehicle.
Chase discloses that the configuration information includes ride height of the vehicle (¶41 – the VIN includes at least one physical dimension which includes the z-direction or the height).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide controlled automation according to the vehicle specific information, as taught by Chase, to the system of Baarman in order to allow for the differences in types of vehicles and variance in vehicular dimensions to provide accurate charging coil alignment (Chase; ¶5).
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rakuff et al. US20210086639A1 discloses a retractable charging system that extends under the vehicle.
Moynihan US4892452A discloses moveable parking blocks at 94 – FIG. 5/8
Checketts et al. US20100183409A1 discloses a parking movement system that include tire blocks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights