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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7 and 16-20, drawn to an inductive charging system and method, classified in B60L53/122.
II. Claims 8-15, drawn to an inductive charging mat, classified in H02J50/402.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed as evidenced by the claimed details of said mat not present in Group I. The subcombination has separate utility.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(i) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(ii) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(iii) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(iv) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and
(v) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Steven Dicke on 6/19/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-7 and 16-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metivet et al. US 2025/0128626 in view of Ha et al. US 2023/0216353.
Metivet teaches:
1. An inductive charging system for an electric vehicle comprising:
an inductive charging mat (“pad” @ Specification [0039-0040]) including an array of transmitting coils with each transmitting coil be independently energizable; and
a control system, upon an electric vehicle having a receiving coil being positioned over the charging mat (see ie. [0060]), the control system to: sequentially energize each transmitting coil (see [0063]); receive from the electric vehicle a detected power transfer characteristic ([0063]) transferred to the receiving coil for each transmitting coil; and
selectively energize a number of transmitting coils of the array of transmitting coils to transfer electrical energy to the receiving coil to charge a battery of the electric based on the level of electrical energy transferred by each transmitting coil [0063 and Claim 1]).
Metivet fails to teach wherein said detected power transfer characteristics are a level of electrical energy transferred.
Ha teaches an inductive charging system wherein said detected power transfer characteristic is a level of electrical energy transferred wherein “level of electrical energy” is read on by “signal strength” via said signal strength packet as it relates to “magnitude of received power”, see [0057]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the SSP as taught by Ha into the system of Metivet to provide a known and available means to realize said otherwise generic feedback of Metivet with SSP benefits of ensuring stable power transfer, preventing overpowering and damage, improved efficiency, compliance standards and regulations as applicable, adaptive control and optimization and QoS in power delivery capabilities.
Metivet further teaches:
3. The inductive charging system of claim 1, the inductive charging mat including a sensor (eg. optical device sensor, RF-based device sensor, [0060]) to indicate a presence of an electric vehicle positioned vertically above the mat.
Metivet further teaches:
4. The inductive charging system of claim 1, wherein the charging mat is configured to perform one of a tightly coupled (read on by resonant power transfer, [0039]) inductive charging process and a loosely coupled inductive charging process.
Metivet further teaches:
6. The inductive charging system of claim 1, wherein an area of the array of transmitting coils in horizontal dimensions is greater than an area of the receiving coil (see on-board coil 121 vs transmitting array 310, FIG3B).
Metivet further teaches:
7. The inductive charging system of claim 1, wherein transmitting coils are arranged to overlap with one or more adjacent transmitting coils (see overlapping transmitting cold of FIG3A).
Metivet teaches:
16. A method of inductively charging an electric vehicle comprising:
placing on a surface of an electric vehicle parking space (See [0043]) an inductive charging mat (read on by pad [0039-0040]) having a plurality of transmitting coils (See FIG3A); upon detecting a presence of an electric vehicle including an inductive charging plate having a number of receiving coils disposed over the inductive charging mat [0060]):
sequentially energize each transmitting coil (see [0063]); receive from the electric vehicle a detected power transfer characteristic ([0063]) transferred to the receiving coil for each transmitting coil; and
selectively energize a number of transmitting coils of the array of transmitting coils to transfer electrical energy to the receiving coil to charge a battery of the electric based on the level of electrical energy transferred by each transmitting coil [0063 and Claim 1] and method of FIGURE 6).
Metivet fails to teach wherein said detected power transfer characteristics are a level of electrical energy transferred.
Ha teaches an inductive charging system wherein said detected power transfer characteristic is a level of electrical energy transferred wherein “level of electrical energy” is read on by “signal strength” via said signal strength packet as it relates to “magnitude of received power”, see [0057]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the SSP as taught by Ha into the system of Metivet to provide a known and available means to realize said otherwise generic feedback of Metivet with SSP benefits of ensuring stable power transfer, preventing overpowering and damage, improved efficiency, compliance standards and regulations as applicable, adaptive control and optimization and QoS in power delivery capabilities.
Metivet further teaches:
19. The method of claim 16, wherein determining the amount of electrical energy transferred to the receiving coils by each transmitting coil includes the electrical vehicle wireless communicating the energy level to a charging mat controller (read on by said microcontroller 1317, [0094] and FIGURE 13).
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metivet et al. US 2025/0128626 in view of Ha et al. US 2023/0216353 and Wechsler US 2017/0129345.
Metivet fails to teach:
5, 20. The inductive charging system of claim 1 (method of claim 16), the charging mat including a vertical positioning system, controllable by the control system, to vertically raise and lower the conductive charging mat.
Wechsler teaches a charging mat including a vertical positioning system (See FIGURE 5), controllable by a control system (ie. 12, FIG5, to vertically raise and lower the conductive charging mat.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the vertical raise/lower device as taught by Wechsler into the system of Metivet with the motivation of providing for increased charging efficiency via closer charging contact thereby reducing losses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 17-18 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights