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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 line 12 reads "turn off all of the beacon and/or the ambient sensor" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "turn off the beacon and/or the ambient sensor" to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
D-WPT as used in claims 1-3 is defined as “dynamic wireless power transmission (D-WPT)” in page 6 paragraph 1 and will be interpreted as such.
Fine Positioning as used in claims 1-3 is defined as “detailed alignment (Fine Positioning)” in page 51 paragraph 3. Page 56 paragraphs 2-3 provides further detail about what detailed alignment entails:
“The detailed alignment A120 will be described. The vehicle 3 performs detailed alignment A120 prior to or in parallel with the pairing and alignment checking A130. The vehicle ECU 330 starts a detailed alignment A120 when it determines that the vehicle 3 has approached or entered the installed area (D-WPT lanes) of the supply device 5.
“The vehicle ECU 330 induces the vehicle 3 to align the primary device 13 with the secondary device 22 within an area that establishes adequate magnetic coupling for wireless power transmission.”
Examiner will thus interpret “Fine Positioning” as a system that aligns a vehicle with a wireless charging section/lane.
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:
In claim 1, the “vehicle control device” in the limitation “A vehicle control device, which is for controlling a vehicle” invokes 112(f) as “control device” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the controlling of a vehicle.
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.
A review of the specification (page 26 paragraph 2) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“The vehicle ECU 330 is an electronic control device for controlling the vehicle 3.”
ECU (electronic control unit) is a well known structure in the art, so the control device will be interpreted as an ECU.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halker et al. US 20150278038 A1 (hereinafter Halker) in view of Sakaguchi et al. US 20200101862 A1 (hereinafter Sakaguchi), Cho US 20240140213 A1 (hereinafter Cho), and Yogamani DE 102017103565 A1 (hereinafter Yogamari; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 1, Halker teaches a vehicle control device (paragraph 0068 "vehicle controller"), which is for controlling a vehicle (Figure 1 112) that comprises:
a secondary coil (Figure 1 116) that receives wirelessly transmitted power from a primary coil (Figure 1 104a and 104b), and
a beacon and/or an ambient sensor for detecting an ambient environment of the vehicle (paragraph 0126-0127 discloses the vehicle can sense external magnetic beacons with sensors to detect charging stations and communicate therebetween),
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to:
when determining that the vehicle is outside a WPT section, switch Fine Positioning from an on state to an off state (paragraph 0206 discloses that a stop alignment command can be sent upon determining a not connected state; paragraph 0173 discloses that a not connected state is one in which the vehicle is driving or stopped and not connected to a charging station, i.e. outside a WPT section).
Halker does not teach a primary coil installed on a road, and determining that the vehicle is traveling outside a D-WPT section or the vehicle is traveling outside a D-WPT lane on a basis of position information of the vehicle.
Sakaguchi teaches a primary coil installed on a road (paragraph 0027 discloses charging coils arranged along a road as a lane), and determining that the vehicle is traveling outside a D-WPT lane (paragraph 0035 discloses determining if a vehicle is on a charging lane or not; paragraph 0010 discloses that wireless charging can occur when the vehicle is travelling or stopped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Sakaguchi such that the WPT section of Halker can be substituted with the D-WPT lane of Sakaguchi wherein a vehicle is determined to be traveling or not on the D-WPT lane according to the teachings of Sakaguchi wherein an alignment function is performed or not depending on if the vehicle is within the lane according to the teachings of Halker. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle range by allowing charging during driving and improve efficiency of the wireless charging lane by ensuring that a vehicle is traveling on a charging lane.
The modified Halker reference does not teach determining that the vehicle is traveling outside a D-WPT section or the vehicle is traveling outside a D-WPT lane on a basis of position information of the vehicle.
Cho teaches determining that the vehicle is traveling outside a D-WPT lane on a basis of position information of the vehicle (paragraph 0042 discloses determining that a vehicle is about to enter a wireless charging segment based on vehicle location information).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Cho with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of location determination.
Halker does not teach that when the Fine Positioning is switched to the off state, the vehicle is controlled to turn off the beacon and/or the ambient sensor.
Yogamani teaches an ambient sensor for detecting an ambient environment of the vehicle (translated page 4 last paragraph discloses environmental sensors of a vehicle) that, when the Fine Positioning is switched to the off state, is controlled to turn off (translated page 5 paragraph 3 discloses that the environmental sensor is only started when the alignment program is started indicating that the environmental sensor is turned off when not aligning).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Yogamani with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce power consumption and processing associated with unnecessary collected data.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Halker reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Halker further teaches maintaining the Fine Positioning in the on state when determining that the vehicle is traveling in the WPT section (Figure 15 1503-1504 discloses initiating alignment when the vehicle wants to charge when in a connected state; paragraph 0173 discloses the connected state is one wherein the vehicle is connected to a charging station), and switching the Fine Positioning from the on state to the off state when determining that the vehicle is traveling outside the WPT section (paragraph 0206 and paragraph 0173).
Halker does not teach determining whether the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section.
Sakaguchi further teaches determining whether the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section (paragraph 0035 and paragraph 0010).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the further teachings of Sakaguchi such that the WPT section of Halker can be substituted with the D-WPT lane of Sakaguchi wherein a vehicle is determined to be traveling or not on the D-WPT lane according to the teachings of Sakaguchi wherein an alignment function is performed or not depending on if the vehicle is within the lane according to the teachings of Halker. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle range by allowing charging during driving and improve efficiency of wireless charging lane by ensuring that a vehicle is traveling on a charging lane.
The modified Halker reference does not teach determining whether the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section based on the position information of the vehicle.
Cho further teaches determining whether the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section based on the position information of the vehicle (paragraph 0042).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the further teachings of Cho with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of location determination.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Halker reference teaches all of claim 2 as detailed above. Halker further teaches maintaining the Fine Positioning in the on state upon determining that the vehicle is traveling in the WPT section (Figure 15 1503-and paragraph 0173), and switching the Fine Positioning from the on state to the off state when determining that the vehicle is traveling outside the WPT section (paragraph 0206 and paragraph 0173).
Halker does not teach determining whether the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT lane when determining that the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section.
Sakaguchi further teaches determining whether the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT lane when determining that the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section (paragraph 0035 discloses determining if a vehicle is on a charging lane or not; paragraph 0010 discloses wireless charging can occur when the vehicle is travelling or stopped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the further teachings of Sakaguchi such that the WPT section of Halker can be substituted with the D-WPT lane of Sakaguchi wherein a vehicle is determined to be traveling or not on the D-WPT lane according to the teachings of Sakaguchi wherein an alignment function is performed or not depending on if the vehicle is within the lane according to the teachings of Halker. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle range by allowing charging during driving and improve efficiency of wireless charging lane by ensuring that a vehicle is traveling on a charging lane.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Halker reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Halker further teaches that the beacon and/or the ambient sensor are always turned on while the Fine Positioning is in the on state (paragraph 0126-0127 discloses the vehicle can sense external magnetic beacons with sensors to detect distance and direction to a wireless charging station);
the vehicle control device is configured to:
upon determining that the vehicle is traveling inside the WPT section, maintain the Fine Positioning to be in the on state (Figure 1503-1504 discloses initiating alignment when the vehicle wants to charge when in a connected state; paragraph 0173 discloses the connected state is one wherein the vehicle is connected to a charging station); and
upon determining that the vehicle is traveling outside the WPT section, switch the Fine Positioning to the off state (paragraph 0206 discloses that a stop alignment command can be sent upon determining a not connected state; paragraph 0173 discloses that a not connected state is one in which the vehicle is driving or stopped and not connected to a charging station, i.e. outside a WPT section).
Halker does not teach determining whether the vehicle is traveling inside or outside the D-WPT section based on GPS information of the vehicle and map information of the D-WPT section.
Cho further teaches determining whether the vehicle is traveling inside or outside the D-WPT section based on GPS information of the vehicle and map information of the D-WPT section (paragraph 0042 discloses determining that a vehicle is about to enter a wireless charging segment based on GPS information of a vehicle and known lane location).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Cho with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of location determination by utilizing GPS and known map data.
Halker does not teach that upon determining that the vehicle is traveling inside the D-WPT section, determine whether the vehicle is travelling inside or outside the D-WPT lane based on the beacon and/or the ambient sensor; and upon determining that the vehicle is traveling outside the D-WPT lane, turn off all of the beacon and/or the ambient sensor.
Yogamani further teaches that the ambient sensor is always turned on while the Fine Positioning is in the on state (translated page 5 paragraph 3 discloses that environmental sensor is only started when the alignment program is started indicating that the environmental sensor is always on when the alignment program is on);
the vehicle control device is configured to:
determine whether the vehicle is travelling inside or outside the WPT section based on the ambient sensor (translated page 4 last paragraph discloses detecting the ground charging unit based on an environmental sensor);
upon determining that the vehicle is traveling outside the WPT section, turn off all of the ambient sensor (translated page 5 paragraph 3 discloses that environmental sensor is only started when the alignment program is started indicating that the environmental sensor is turned off when not aligning).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Yogamani with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of location determination by utilizing a camera system and reduce power consumption and processing associated with unnecessary data collection.
Halker does not teach upon determining that the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section, determining whether the vehicle is traveling inside the D-WPT lane.
Sakaguchi further teaches, upon determining that the vehicle is traveling in the D-WPT section, determining whether the vehicle is traveling inside the D-WPT lane (paragraph 0035 discloses determining if a vehicle is on a charging lane or not; paragraph 0010 discloses wireless charging can occur when the vehicle is travelling or stopped).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the further teachings of Sakaguchi such that the WPT section of Halker and Yogamani can be substituted with the D-WPT lane of Sakaguchi wherein a vehicle is determined to be traveling or not on the D-WPT lane according to the teachings of Sakaguchi utilizing the camera based detection according to the teachings of Yogamani wherein an alignment function is performed or not depending on if the vehicle is within the lane according to the teachings of Halker. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve vehicle range by allowing charging during driving and improve efficiency of wireless charging lane by ensuring that a vehicle is traveling on a charging lane.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halker as modified by Sakaguchi, Yogamani, and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolgemuth et al. US 20220294277 A1 (hereinafter Wolgemuth).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Halker reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Halker further teaches starting transmitting modulated signals at regular intervals for pairing of the primary coil with the secondary coil of the vehicle (paragraph 0128 discloses pairing vehicle and charging coils using modulated magnetic fields).
Halker does not teach transmitting, to a server by wide area radio communication, information indicating that the vehicle has approached the D-WPT lane.
Wolgemuth teaches transmitting, to a server (paragraph 0007 "server") by wide area radio communication (paragraph 0062 discloses communications to and from a vehicle may be with wide area radio communication systems), information indicating that the vehicle has approached the D-WPT lane (paragraph 0007 discloses communicating with a server to authorize vehicle charging on a charging lane; paragraphs 0041-0042 indicate that this communication occurs when a vehicle has been set up to be able to charge at a charging lane).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Wolgemuth with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure billing is possible before charging as disclosed in Wolgemuth (paragraph 0042).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halker as modified by Sakaguchi, Yogamani, and Cho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon US 20200198489 A1 (hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Halker reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Halker further teaches causing the Fine Positioning of the vehicle to be performed automatically with ADAS (Automated Driving Assistance System) (paragraph 0133 discloses that the alignment is performed by an autopilot system; examiner considers autopilot a type of ADAS) by aligning the secondary coil of the vehicle with the primary coil on the road to establish magnetic coupling there-between (Figure 15 1503-1504 disclose initiating alignment when the vehicle wants to charge when in a connected state; paragraphs 0176-0178 disclose that alignment is based on establishing a sufficient magnetic coupling alignment between vehicle and charging station coils), wherein the Fine Positioning is continued until the vehicle leaves the WPT section or a state of the vehicle changes to end of communication (paragraph 0206 discloses that a stop alignment command can be sent upon determining a not connected state; paragraph 0173 discloses that a not connected state is one in which the vehicle is driving or stopped and not connected to a charging station, i.e. outside a WPT section wherein communication has ended and/or doesn’t occur; paragraph 0212 discloses that the stop state can also be a critical fault state).
Halker does not teach causing a compatibility check to be performed between the secondary coil of the vehicle and the primary coil installed on the road, the compatibility check being performed by a supply device including the primary coil installed on the road based on vehicle information transmitted from the vehicle to the supply device using a wide-area wireless communication.
Yoon teaches causing a compatibility check to be performed between the secondary coil of the vehicle and the primary coil installed on the road (paragraph 0120 discloses determining if a wireless charging equipment and charging mechanism of the vehicle are compatible based on obtained vehicle information), the compatibility check being performed by a supply device including the primary coil installed on the road (paragraph 0120 discloses that charging infrastructure performs this check) based on vehicle information transmitted from the vehicle to the supply device (paragraph 0115 discloses vehicle information is transmitted to a parking infrastructure server; paragraph 0119 discloses this information is forwarded to the charging infrastructure) using a wide-area wireless communication (paragraph 0040 discloses communication can occur utilizing various wireless configurations including WiMAX which examiner understands to be a type of wide area wireless communication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Halker to incorporate the teachings of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by preventing any overheating that may occur due to mismatched vehicle and charger and reduce unnecessary power drain by preventing charging for non-compatible vehicles.
Response to Amendment
Specification amendments filed 10/3/2025 have been received and fully considered and overcome the specification, abstract, and title objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 7/29/2025. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Claim amendments filed 10/3/2025 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objection of record detailed in the Office Action dated 7/29/2025. These/this objection have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-7, filed 10/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Halker as modified by Sakaguchi, Yogamani, and Cho. See 103 rejections above.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan et al. CN 107972666 A discloses utilizing a magnetic/electric field sensor installed on the bottom of a vehicle to determine if the vehicle is in a charging lane.
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 4:30 pm PST Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669