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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 19, 2025 has been entered.
Accordingly claim 1 has been amendment. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-3 remains pending in this application. It also includes remarks and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s indicated in the amendment and remarks field on December 12, 2025 support for the amendment involving claim 1 can be found, for instance, in page 13 line 7 to page 14 line 23 of the subject application as originally filed. The examiner does not find the subject matter in the specification originally field particularly the amended limitation reciting “changes the predetermined threshold value to decrease so as to restrict an unnecessary AC power transmitted from the power transmission in case in which a larger regenerative power is expected after a speed of the vehicle increases. The specification discloses that the control device 17 restricts reception of AC power by the power reception device 4 when a state of charge (SOC) of the power storage device 11 is larger than a predetermined threshold value. Further, the control device 17 changes the predetermined threshold value (SOC) to decrease as a speed of the movable body, e.g. vehicle increases. Furthermore, the specification discloses in Fig. 4 as the speed of the vehicle increase, the deceleration regenerative energy obtained by the regenerative operation of the rotating electric machine when the vehicle decelerates changes to increase and in Fig. 5, the control device 17 changes an upper limit value of the state of charge (SOC) of the power storage device 11 to decrease as the vehicle speed increases so that all of the deceleration regenerative energy can be stored in the power storage device 11. However, nowhere does it describe the recite limitations “in case in which a larger regenerative power is expected after a speed of the vehicle increases”. The limitations contains new subject matter.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the claims are dependent upon base claim 1.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 2015/0224883) and in view of Miller et al. (US 2016/0244044).
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa et al. in [Fig. 1] discloses a contactless power transmission system [see vehicle power supply system, i.e. (contactless power supply system) 10 and 0038] comprising:
a power reception unit [see 110] configured to receive AC power contactlessly transmitted from a power transmission device [see 220 and 0038, 0045 and 0084];
a power conversion unit [see 180] configured to convert the AC power received by the power reception unit [see 110] into DC power [see 0052];
a power storage device [see 190 and 0055-0056] connected to the power conversion unit [see 180 and 0052];
a rotating electric machine [see 130] configured to generate a traveling driving force of a vehicle and to transmit and receive power to and from the power storage device [see 190 and 0061]; and
a control device [see vehicle ECU 300 and the switching control including a control device used for a switching regulator in the rectifier 180 and 0052 and 0064] configured to control an operation of the power conversion unit [see 180 and 0052] and power transmission [see 220] and reception [see 110] between the power storage device [see 110] and the rotating electric machine [see 130 and 0133],
wherein the control device [see 300] restricts reception of the AC power by the power reception unit [see 110] when a state of charge of the power storage device [see 190] is larger than a predetermined threshold value so as to restrict an unnecessary AC power transmitted from the power transmission device [see 0138-0139 and 0145].
Ichikawa et al. does not disclose the control device [300] configured to changes the predetermined threshold value to decrease in case in which a larger regenerative power is expected after a speed of the vehicle increases.
However Miller et al. discloses a control device changes the predetermined threshold value [i.e. at high SOC the controller reduces the SOC of the battery] to decrease in case in which a larger regenerative power is expected after a speed of the vehicle increases [such that the vehicle is traveling at high speeds deceleration or hill descent and 0034, 0044-0048, and 0050-0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date of the invention to modify the control device as taught by Ichikawa et al. with the control device as taught by Miller et al. in order to provide higher battery capacity to maximize energy capture during an anticipated regenerative braking event.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 2015/0224883) and in view of Miller et al. (US 2016/0244044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beaver et al. (US 2018/0312080).
Regarding claim 2, Ichikawa et al. and in view of Miller et al. discloses the contactless power transmission system according to claim 1, except for wherein the control device makes a power balance at the power storage device zero, and matches power received by the power reception unit with power required for the traveling driving force.
However, Beaver et al. discloses a control device [see 722] making a power balance at the power storage device zero [i.e. maintaining a relatively constant battery charging power], and matches power received by the power reception unit with power required for the traveling driving force [see 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date of the invention to modify the control device as taught by Ichikawa et al. mentioned combination with the control device as taught by Beaver et al. in order to maintain a relatively constant battery charging power based on the motive power and speed of the vehicle, thereby providing an improved dynamic charging system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 2015/0224883) and in view of Miller et al. (US 2016/0244044) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakao et al. (US 2023/0187983).
Regarding claim 3, Ichikawa et al. and in view of Miller et al. discloses the contactless power transmission system according to claim 1, except for wherein the control device restricts reception of the AC power by short-circuiting of the power reception unit.
However, Nakao et al. in [Fig. 5] discloses a control device [see 30] that restricts of the AC power by short-circuiting [via switch 41] of the power reception unit [see power receiving apparatus 4 and 0070 and 0072-0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior art prior to the filling date of the invention to modify the control device as taught by Ichikawa et al. mentioned combination with the control device as taught by Nakao et al. in order to decrease the power transmitted from the power transmitting apparatus to the power receiving apparatus, and therefore reduce the output voltage of the resonant circuit for the particular load requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues that while there may be a possibility that a part of the cases of Miller in which the vehicle is traveling at high speeds deceleration or hill descent may be included in the case of the subject matter in which a speed of the vehicle increases, Miller’s control is simply “at high SOC the controller reduces the SOC of the battery”, and is not a change of a threshold of a state in order to restrict reception of AC power is redundant to the claimed subject matter as restrict unnecessary AC power as claimed in the subject application. However, the examiner does not agree with the Applicants assessment and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Firstly, the claim does not require the change of the threshold of a state of the charge in order to restrict reception of AC power as applicants argues is claimed in the subject application. Secondly, the examiner will like to point out to the Applicant’s that Miller et al. wasn’t not relied upon to disclose wherein the control device restricts reception of the AC power by the power reception unit when a state of charge of the power storage device is larger than a predetermined threshold value. Ichikawa et al. was relied upon for those teaches as disclosed in [0138-0139 and 0145]. Further, Miller et al. is used to disclose a control device configured to make a change to the predetermined threshold value of SOC of a power storage device to decrease as a speed of the vehicle increases. Furthermore, reducing the high SOC, is a threshold value of the SOC. Even more, Miller et al. discloses a vehicle controller configured to reduce a target SOC based on comparison of a thresholds as the speed of the vehicle increases in order to provide higher battery capacity to maximize energy capture during an anticipated regenerative braking event, such as high-speed deceleration [e.g. braking at very high speeds] or hill descent[ 0034, 0044-0048, and 0050-0051]. Furthermore, Miller et al. in [Fig. 1], discloses an external power source 36 may provide DC or AC electric power to the EVSE 38. The EVSE 38 may provide circuity and controls to regulate and manage the transfer of energy between the external power source 36 and vehicle 12. The power conversion module 32 may interface with the EVSE 38 to coordinate the delivery of power to the vehicle. Along, with various components described as being electrically connected may transfer power using a wireless inductive coupling [see 0024]. This would indicate that through the wireless inductive coupling that the control device should restrict reception of AC power by the power reception in order to provide higher battery capacity to maximize energy capture during an anticipated regenerative braking event, such as high-speed deceleration or hill descent [see 0034 and 0044-0047].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., According to subject application, for example , in case in which a larger regenerative power is expected after the speed of the vehicle increases, since the threshold of the SOC is reduced and an unnecessary AC power transmitted from a power transmission device can be restricted) does not change the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the limitation recited in the respective claim “so as to” ” is a description of the intended benefits of the “restricts” functionality. It’s also redundant – if you are “restricting”, then obviously what you have removed is “unnecessary”. Also, the phrase “in a case which” is a hypothetical. In addition, claim 1 does not recite that the control device has any awareness of regenerative power levels, for example it does not predict any future regeneration, and it does not compare any regenerative power to a threshold. So, the amendment does not require that the control device completes extra functionality to determine “if” an event is about to happen (larger regen than expected).
As a result, the combinations of Ichikawa et al. in view of Miller et al. vehicle restricts AC power reception when the vehicle speed increases. This would happen at all times the vehicle speed increases, including “if” there happened to be a regenerative event upcoming (a stop sign, red light, etc.). Since the upcoming regenerative event isn’t known, sensed or predicted, it’s just a description of a possibility. And the “comprising” in the preamble is open-ended – meaning it does not prohibit other elements. In other words, (even if the claim was amended to recite that the control device predicts upcoming regenerative events), the claimed control device is not prohibited from restricting power reception because of other speed events. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRENCE RONIQUE WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-2725. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30pm.
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.
/TERRENCE R WILLOUGHBY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 1/22/26
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836