DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This Office Action response to the Application filed on 4/3/2024, and IDS and preliminary amendment filed on 11/14/2024. Claims 21-40 are pending, wherein claims 1-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-40 have been newly added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,975,624 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious variations of each other, having similar charging unit, receiver, sensor and control module and their connections/interconnections and arrangement, wherein the control module is configured to perform similar operations of activating the charging unit for wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver in response to determining the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit (based on data from the sensor/first sensor); and deactivating the charging unit from wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver, in response to determining an object/one or more objects other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit, based on the data from the sensor/second sensor, except that the patented claims recite two sensors, the first sensor to detect when the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the housing which contain the charging unit and the second sensor to detect when one or more objects, other than the vehicle, is positioned adjacent to the housing, which are obvious subset of the sensor of the present claims, which perform similar functions as further recited in present claims 26-27; wherein the charging unit being disposed within a housing as recited in the patented claims is covered by the present claim 31; and wherein the present claims recite determining an object other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit which are obvious variations of the patented claims reciting determining one or more objects other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the housing since the location of the charging unit is about the same as the housing as recited in the patented claims and the one object is an obvious subset of the one or more objects as recited in the patented claims.
Claims 35-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,975,624 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar operations/steps of activating the charging station for wirelessly transferring electrical power to a receiver of the vehicle in response to determining, based on data from a sensor of the charging station, that the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging station; and deactivating the charging station from wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver in response to determining, based on the data from the sensor, that an object other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging station, except that the present claims are directed to a method of wirelessly charging a vehicle using a charging station whereas the patented claims are directed to a wireless charging station, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of effective filing date of the invention to derive the method steps from operations of the system of wireless charging station to arrive at the present claims because such method steps can interchangeably performed by the system of the wireless charging station as is known in the art; wherein the patented claims recite two sensors, the first sensor to detect when the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the housing which contain the charging unit and the second sensor to detect when one or more objects, other than the vehicle, is positioned adjacent to the housing, which are obvious subset of the sensor of the present claims, which perform similar functions as further recited in present claims 36-39; wherein the charging unit being disposed within a housing as recited in the patented claims is an obvious subset of the present claims; and wherein the present claims recite determining an object other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging station which are obvious variations of the patented claims reciting determining one or more objects other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the housing since the housing is part of the charging station as recited in the patented claims, providing similar positions and the one object as recited in the present claims is an obvious subset of the one or more objects as recited in the patented claims.
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,975,624 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is an obvious subset of the present claim, containing similar components (i.e., charging unit, receiver of a vehicle, sensor, control module) and their arrangement and connections, performing similar operations in which the charging unit configured to wirelessly transfer electrical power to a receiver of a vehicle; the sensor configured to detect an object other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit; and a control module configured to determine that the object is positioned adjacent to the charging unit, based on data received from the sensor, to deactivate the charging unit from wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver; except that the patented claims recites two sensors, one to detect when the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit and another to detect when one or more objects other than the vehicle, is/are positioned adjacent to the housing which are obvious subset of the present claims; and wherein the present claim does not require that the control module activate the charging unit to wirelessly transfer power to the receiver in response to determining the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit, which is an obvious variations of the patented claims since in the present claims, the charging unit is already activated (i.e., configured to wirelessly transfer electrical power to a receiver of a vehicle).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0074346 A1).
As per claim 40, Figs. 1 and 3 illustrate the elements of the claim comprising:
a wireless charging station (fig. 1), comprising:
a charging unit (101 in Hall’s fig. 1) configured to wirelessly transfer electrical power to a receiver (111) of a vehicle (102);
a sensor (103 in fig. 1, 301 in fig. 3; or collectively all sensors) configured to detect an object (110) other than the vehicle is positioned adjacent to the charging unit (101); and
a control module (303 in fig. 3) configured to determine that the object (110) is positioned adjacent to the charging unit (101), based on data received from the sensor (103 in fig. 1, 301 in fig. 3) to deactivate (paragraph [0039]: sensor 103 detects the presence of an object 110 … shutting down of the charger …. sensor 103 is implemented … the mere presence of an object) the charging unit (101) from wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver (111).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0074346 A1) in view of Sagata (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0038272 A1) and/or Mitake et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0187317 A1).
As per claims 21, 28 and 35, 37, Hall et al. teach a wireless charging station (fig. 1), comprising:
a charging unit (101 in Hall’s fig. 1) configured to wirelessly transfer electrical power to a receiver (111) of a vehicle (102);
a sensor (103 in fig. 1, 301 in fig. 3; or collectively all sensors); and
a control module (303 in fig. 3) in communication with the charging unit (111) and the sensor (103, 301), the control module (303) is configured to:
cause the vehicle (102 ) to activate the charging unit for wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver (111) (see paragraphs [0016], [0039]; and
determine an object (110) other than the vehicle (102) is positioned adjacent to the charging unit (101), based on the data from the sensor (103, 301), to deactivate (¶0039: sensor 103 detects the presence of an object 110 … shutting down of the charger …. sensor 103 is implemented … the mere presence of an object) the charging unit (101) from wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver (111).
However, Hall et al. failed to specifically teach that the determination of the vehicle is adjacent to the charging unit before activating the charging unit to transfer electrical power to the receiver, wherein Hall et al. presume that the vehicle is in the correct position (i.e., vehicle is positioned near the charging unit—see paragraph [0033]) for charging unit because charging was activated (see paragraphs [0039], [0016], and conversely, if the vehicle is not in the correct position, the charging unit would be deactivated (inhibit activation)i.e., charging was initially activated and deactivated or partially deactivated when overheating is detected due to foreign object(s) or detection of foreign object(s) for safety reasons, and would remain activated if no foreign object is detected by the sensor or no overheating is detected by the sensor due to foreign object). Sagata teach the alignment or positioning of the vehicle to a nearby charger (i.e., primary coil L1) so that the wireless or non-contacting power transfer is optimally performed and conversely, the charger would be inhibited from activation when no vehicle is detected adjacent to the charger (see paragraphs [0113], [0051]). Mitake et al. teach that after the position sensor detects the vehicle come to a stop at the charging position (i.e., near the charger), the wireless or non-contacting charging of the vehicle is started and conversely, the charger would be inhibited from activation when no vehicle is detected adjacent to the charger (see paragraphs [0088]-[0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to further incorporate the teachings of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. to the method/system of Hall et al. because such incorporation would allow the vehicle to be in the correctly position near the charger for optimal or proper wireless/non-contacting charging as taught by Sagata and/or Mitake et al. while benefiting from the safety features of charging due to interference of foreign objects as further taught by Hall et al..
As per claim 22, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein prior to the determining the vehicle or object is position adjacent to the charging unit, the control module is configured to retrieve the data from the sensor is also taught by Mitake et al. (data was necessarily retrieved from the sensor by the onboard communication unit 13 in order to allow the vehicle control unit apply emergency brake to hold the vehicle in place and simultaneously charged—see paragraphs [0088[]-0089], [0102]) and Sagata (see paragraphs [0113], [0138], Fig. 8, i.e., data must necessarily be retrieved from the sensor/detector in order allow the management center to identify or detect the vehicle in the charging area).
As per claim 23¸ Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the communication unit that is configured to transmit the data from the sensor to the vehicle in response to the control module determining the object is positioned adjacent to the charging unit (see paragraph [0035], [0039]-[0040]).
As per claim 24, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the data is indicative of a presence of the object adjacent to the charging unit (see paragraph [0039]-[0040]).
As per claim 25, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the sensor includes at least one of a proximity sensor, a visual imaging sensor, a pressure sensor, an infrared sensor, and a global-positioning system (GPS) sensor (paragraphs [0033], [0040], [0043]).
As per claim 26, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claims depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21, wherein Hall et al. further teach the sensor is configured to detect the vehicle and the object when positioned adjacent to the charging unit (see paragraph [0040]]—sensor(s) detecting obstructions and foreign objects and/or materials between the source and device resonators; paragraph [0039]—using transmitted and/or reflected acoustic, microwave, RF, optical, and other signals for positioning, parking assist, collision avoidance for detecting both vehicle and objects; paragraph [0033]—proximity sensor that determines the presence or absence of the automobile).
As per claims 27 and 36, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claims 21 and 35, from which the claims depend respectively as discussed in the rejection of claims 21 and 35 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the sensor is configured to detect the vehicle and the object when positioned within a predetermined distance from the charging unit ( paragraph [0033]--since proximity sensor is used for detection of vehicle in proximity to the charger/resonator, by definition, proximity sensor detects the vehicle when positioned within a predetermined distance from the charging unit/resonator; paragraph [0040]—various sensors are used for detection of obstructions and foreign objects and/or materials between the source and device resonators and surrounding area would inherently have a predetermined distance or range for which the objects are detected).
As per claim 29, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the control module is configured to cease continued activation of the charging unit after the sensor detects the vehicle positioned adjacent to the charging unit and in response to the sensor detecting the object positioned adjacent to the charging unit (paragraph [0038]—charging cannot take place if the nearby object is detected); Sagata also teaches the control module is configured to cease continued activation of the charging unit until after the sensor detects the vehicle positioned adjacent to the charging unit (see abstract; i.e., charging not activated until vehicle being adjacent to the charging unit is detected); Mitake et al. also teach that charging does not occur until vehicle is in the proper place, i.e., adjacent to the charging unit—see paragraphs [0088[]-0089], [0102]).
As per claim 30, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the control module is configured to determine the object is positioned between the charging unit and the receiver, based on the data from the sensor, to deactivate the charging unit from continuously wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver (see paragraph [0038], i.e., “in one embodiment, conventional interlock circuitry is used to implement such control so that charging cannot take place if object 110 is detected”, wherein such detection is based on the data of the sensor in order for the charging to be deactivated and the effected object would include objects positioned between the charging unit and the receiver which would cause such overheating problems).
As per claim 31, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach a housing positioned flush with a ground surface (Fig. 1, i.e., vehicle resonator 101 (i.e., charging unit) is integrated with a garage floor or embedded in the floor and the vehicle resonator 111 attached to the underside vehicle facing the source resonator—see paragraph [0024], wherein the charging unit and the control module are disposed within the housing (paragraph [0040]). Sagata also shows the housing for the charging unit and control module are packaged in the ST (100)—see also paragraph [0078].
As per claim 32¸ Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the sensor is disposed with the housing (see paragraph [0027], i.e., the sensor is integrated with the source resonator 101, which is has a covering or housing as further taught in paragraph [0040]).
As per claim 33, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the sensor is positioned external to the housing (see paragraph [0027], sensor 103 is located external to the housing that covers source resonator 102).
As per claim 34, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 21, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach the object is movable and separate from the vehicle (see paragraph [0008], i.e., a wrench left on a garage floor would be detected as a foreign object in which someone could pick it up; see also paragraphs [0026], [0040]).
As per claim 38, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 35, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 35 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach that in response to deactivating the charging station from wirelessly transferring the electrical power to the receiver, transmitting a notification to the vehicle indicating that the wireless transfer of the electrical power to the receiver has been deactivated due to detection of the object adjacent to the charging station (see paragraphs [0032], [0040]).
As per claim 39, Hall et al. in view of Sagata and/or Mitake et al. teach all of the elements of claim 35, from which the claim depends as discussed in the rejection of claim 35 above, wherein Hall et al. further teach in paragraph [0046] that prior to activating and deactivating the charging station (i.e., source resonator), the method comprises: monitoring a ground surface that the charging station is installed on with the sensor (clearing area 201 is monitored by the clearing mechanism at various times, including prior to activating and deactivating the charging…i.e., monitoring objects between the time of clearing and the time that charging begins, when the vehicle is parked in area 201, when the vehicle approaches area 201, while the vehicle charging is taking place); and transmitting the data from the sensor to the control module upon the sensor detecting the vehicle or the object being positioned on the ground surface adjacent to the charging station (paragraph [0045]), data from the sensor 103 detecting vehicle and foreign objects, would transmit the positions of the vehicle/objects when in communication with the management functions (i.e., Fig. 3), in order for the management functions to send notification, inhibit charging, begin charging functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHALLAKA KIK whose telephone number is (571)272-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 8:30AM-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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 5712727483. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P. O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300
/PHALLAKA KIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights