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 .
Response to Arguments
Response to Drawings Objection
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the Drawings being corrected have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Response to Specification Objection
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to ¶ 111 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 r of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of a positional relationship contains a gap. In response to applicant's argument that a gap is not a positional relationship , a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Examiner notes the recitation of positional relationship should be amended to be more specific as to what difference there is between the claimed positional relationship and a gap/proximity disclosed in Moghe.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
See above for response on Moghe determining a positional relationship. Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Keeling Moghe in view of Keeling disclose the ability to compare to amounts of power to determine the smaller one to be closer to the actual requested power.
Examiner notes the recitation of two amounts of power should be amended to specify the difference between the two amounts of power and the relationship to the position of the coils.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as being anticipated by MOGHE et al., US Patent No. 10507737 (Effective File Date 10/25/2017 hereinafter MOGHE).
As per claim 1, A wireless power transfer system configured to transfer power in a non-contact manner from a supply device on a road side to a vehicle (see Fig. 1B and pg.5 In. 25: In particular, WPT system 140 may include any or all of the following components: a vehicle 160, a roadside unit (RSU) 150, one or more ground-based charging coils);
the wireless power transfer system comprising a processor, (see claim 8; pg. 7 In. 19-26 and Fig 1B: the WPT as one of the devices in FIG. 1; Based on the specification, this reads as the WPT contains a processor);
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire power transferring device information related to a power transferring device included in the supply device, (see pg. 13 In. 24 - 30, pg. 14 In.1-9: charging and alignment information);
power receiving device information related to one or more power receiving devices provided in the vehicle, (see Fig. 3A-3D pg. 11 In. 9-11 and above: the vehicle information, location of coils etc.);
and state information related to a state of a battery of the vehicle (see pg. 12 In. 22-27: Battery management system. Which includes charge and temperature of the battery);
and based on the power transferring device information, the power receiving device information, and the state information, determine an amount of power to be supplied to the vehicle (see pg. 13 In. 12 - 24: calculates amount of power);
in accordance with a positional relationship between the power transferring device and each of the one or more power receiving devices (see pg. 22 In. 24 - 28, pg. 14 In. 1-9: the position of the vehicle- based coil on the vehicle, the location of the ground-based coil, and the vehicle speed. Other techniques may also be used);
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MOGHE (10507737) in view of KEELING (9608465 Effective File Date: 03/08/2017) hereinafter KEELING.
As per claim 2, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. MOGHE teaches the wireless power transfer system according to claim 1, wherein: the power transferring device information includes a type of the power transferring device; (see pg. 13 In. 24 - 30, pg. 14 In. 1-9 charging and alignment information);
the power receiving device information includes an installation position and a type of each of the one or more power receiving devices (see pg. 22 In. 24 - 28, pg. 11 In. 22: In some embodiments, when the vehicle will be within charging proximity may be determined, for example, based on the location of the vehicle, the position of the vehicle based coil on the vehicle, the location of the ground based coil, and the vehicle speed. Other techniques may also be used.);
and the number of the one or more power receiving devices installed in the vehicle (pg. 11 19-29, pg. 12 In. 1-8 Vehicle information, Type of coil, locations and assembly information);
the state information includes a voltage of the battery (see pg. 12 In. 22-28 Battery Management System containing the voltage of the battery);
and the processor is configured to determine a first amount of power based on the type of the power transferring device, the type of each of the one or more power receiving devices, and the voltage of the battery (see pg. 10 In. 24-27, pg. 11 In. 14-18 pg. 12 In. 22-27 and pg. 13 In. 12-24 For example, based on the vehicle characteristics 302, supervisory service 170 may determine that the charging coil 162 of vehicle 160 will be in close proximity (e.g., less than several feet) with that of ground-based charging coil 164b at a time t=t1. In addition, supervisory service 170 may determine that vehicle 160 requires charging, is authorized to charge, and/or an amount of power that should be delivered to the identified ground-based charging coil);
based on a position in which the power transferring device is disposed and a position in which each of the one or more power receiving devices is disposed, determine a second amount of power in accordance with the positional relationship between the power transferring device and each of the one or more power receiving devices (see pg. 14 In. 16-23 In such cases, including alignment information in charging information 304 allows vehicle 160 to be directed towards the proper lane and alignment, for maximum charging. For example, charging information 304 may indicate that vehicle 160 should drive ten inches to the right of lane center, to maximize the overlap, if coil 164 is six inches to the right of the center of the lane and coil 162 is four inches to the left of the center of vehicle 160. This relatively small change often inches may lead to a significant increase in the percentage of overlap between coils 162 and 164 and, therefore, the power transfer);
MOGHE does not appear to explicitly disclose determine a smaller one of the first amount of power and the second amount of power as the amount of power.
KEELING teaches determine a smaller one of the first amount of power and the second amount of power as the amount of power (see ¶ 066 The comparator680 may compare the output power/current from the voltage/current measure unit665 and the power/current request from the vehicle battery670. The comparator may then generate an error value based on the comparison and supply the error value to the PID controller gains685. The PID controller gains685 receives the error value and may attempt to minimize the error value of the comparator680 by adjusting control outputs, e.g., adjusting the power/current request from the vehicle battery670 to generate the base current request from the vehicle controller675);
MOGHE and KEELING are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is Wireless Power Transfer.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify a wireless power transfer system to include a comparison of the values already tracked in the system to determine the smallest of the two and set that as the new value.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been as MOGHE discloses on pg. 14 In. 14-18: In such cases, including alignment information in charging information 304 allows vehicle 160 to be directed towards the proper lane and alignment, for maximum charging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KEELING with MOGHE for the benefit of adding testing and using information, they could increase the efficiency of the WPL and alignment of the coils reducing the effects directed to the battery to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As per claim 3, MOGHE teaches the wireless power transfer system according to claim 2, wherein: the state information further includes a rate of charge of the battery and a temperature of the battery (see pg. 12 In. 22-27 this data can include any information regarding the current and/or prior states of the battery of vehicle 160. For example, the BMS data may be indicative of the existing charge in the battery of vehicle 160, a history of charging of the battery of vehicle 160, the current battery temperature and/or surrounding temperature, or the like);
and the processor is configured to, based on the rate of charge of the battery and the temperature of the battery, calculate a maximum value of power that is able to be supplied to the vehicle (see pg. 10: 24-28 and BMS inform, pg. 12 22-27, pg. 13 In. 12-16 In FIG. 3B, supervisory service 170 may use the received vehicle characteristics 302, to determine the appropriate coil charging parameters 306 for ground-based charging coils 164. Generally, coil charging parameters 306 may indicate which of ground-based charging coils 164 are to be powered, if any, when coils 164 should be powered, and the appropriate power level to be supplied);
MOGHE does not appear to explicitly disclose cause the power transferring device to supply power to the vehicle by reducing the amount of power such that the amount of power does not exceed the maximum value.
KEELING teaches cause the power transferring device to supply power to the vehicle by reducing the amount of power such that the amount of power does not exceed the maximum value (see ¶ 34 The receiver208 and the transmitter 204 may alternatively communicate via in-band signaling using characteristics of the wireless field 205. The receiver 208 may be configured to determine whether an amount of power transmitted by the transmitter 204 and received by the receiver 208 is appropriate for charging the battery 236);
MOGHE and KEELING are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is Wireless Power Transfer.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify a wireless power transfer system to include safety measures such as a maximum voltage and current to be sent to the battery.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been as KEELING discloses on ¶ 69 accordance with embodiments described below the vehicle controller 675 may communicate less frequently with the base controller 620 when sending a power request rather than a current request, which may reduce the effects of the wireless communications delay 625 on the overall wireless charging system 600.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KEELING and MOGHE for the benefit of not overcharging the battery based on the provided information to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3
As per claim 4, MOGHE teaches the wireless power transfer system according to claim 3, wherein the supply device includes the processor (see pg. 7 In. 19-26, Fig 1B shows the RSU as one of the devices in FIG. 1. Based on the specification this reads as the RSU contains a processor);
As per claim 5, MOGHE teaches the wireless power transfer system according to claim 3, further comprising a server configured to communicate with the vehicle and the supply device, wherein the server includes the processor (see claim 8, pg. 7 In. 19-26, Fig 1B shows the Supervisory Service (server) as one of the devices in FIG. 1. Based on the specification, this reads as the server contains a processor);
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights