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
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 11/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments center on the fact that a power module may not receive each of the signal broadcasts. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, electromagnetic induction (EM-induction; ¶[55] of Ogawa) is a process whereby EM waves are generated from a transmitter/primary- coil/antenna and received by a receiver/secondary-coil/antenna. The waves are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to spread in all directions from the transmitter/primary-coil/antenna. However, the strongest part is generally considered to be that which is noticed by receivers/secondary-coils/antennae. So, while a plurality of transmitters in a relatively small era may transmit power-signal which is received by one or more receivers [and thus induced as current], a certain transmitter may only be noticeable [subject to the tolerance by the sensor/processor/comparator/etc.] by a single or minority of the receivers. One reason for requiring a tolerance of induced power/current to recognize the induced power is due to efficiency reasons, since lower power induced can indicate it is not a good match [due to distance, orientation, frequency, etc.].
With all that in mind, Ogawa’s close transmitters, when two or more are operating at the same time, are received by each of the one or more receivers (see e.g. Figs. [3, 8, 10, 11]). However, it may only be recognized if the received power/current is above a tolerance threshold. The applicant did not claim what “receiving a signal broadcast” means [is it recognizing them, or only receiving the power on the coil]. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are respectfully refuted. Nevertheless, to address the applicant’s concerns, the examiner will introduce another reference as explained in the interview on 10/14/2025.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see pages 2-11, filed 11/14/25, with respect to the Claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Examiner Note
The above application has been granted special under the PCT Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program. The guidelines and FAQs are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/patent-prosecution-highway-pph-fast-track
Under this program, once the PPH request is granted, you may not add new additional limitations to the US independent claims during prosecution because they do not sufficiently correspond with the claims allowed by the OEE. As set forth in the PPH FAQ’s under Claim Amendments:
34. The PPH notice indicates that U.S. claims will be considered to sufficiently correspond with the claims allowed by the OEE if the U.S. claims are of the same or similar scope or the U.S. claims are narrower in scope than the allowed claims. The additional limitation that makes the U.S. claims narrower in scope than the allowed claims must be presented in dependent form. Can applicant incorporate the narrower dependent claim into the independent claim during the U.S. prosecution if the independent claim which has the same scope as the allowed claim was rejected by the U.S. examiner but the narrower dependent claim was objected to as being allowable except for its dependency on a rejected claim?
A. If the narrower dependent claim is indicated as being allowable if written in independent form, you may rewrite the allowable dependent claim in independent form.
35. If an independent claim which sufficiently corresponds to an allowed claim in the OEE work product is rejected by the U.S. examiner but may be allowable if amended to include some additional limitation(s), will such an amendment meet the sufficient correspondence requirement?
A. Yes, but only if the limitation was one previously presented in a dependent claim that is indicated as having allowable subject matter but objected to only because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ogawa et al (USPGPN 20130200718) in view of Hwang (USPGPN 20150270718) and Azam et al (USPGPN 20200287424)
Independent Claim 1, Ogawa discloses a charging/discharging control method (Figs. 5-8 and 11) of controlling a power module (11, 31, 31-1, 31-2, 31) connected to any of a plurality of power systems (12-1, 12-2, 12-N, 32-1, 32-2, 32-3, 32-4, 32-N; see Figs. 1-4, 7, 9, and 10), the charging/discharging control method comprising:
receiving a signal broadcast from each of the power systems via a receiver included in the power module (¶’s [35-44], [s11, s12] of Fig. 5, s22 of Fig. 6, [1] of Fig. 7, Fig. 11);
acquiring an input voltage inputted to the power module (s22 yes of fig. 6, if signal is noticeable, then the voltage would implicitly be acquired, see Fig. 11 and ¶’s [42, 68]);
determining a degree of relationship between the signal and the input voltage for each of the power systems (if there is a response, it means the supply source has generated a voltage on the receiving vehicle, which means the voltage is above zero, thus Fig. 11 shows this response to the relationship, so determination of the voltage being generated means a relationship has been determined, wherein the determination); and
controlling the power module based on the signal relating to the power system having the degree of relationship greater than or equal to a prescribed threshold (Figs. 5-7 and 11, as noted above, permits the charging to occur with the matching, optimized, transmission power system after the transfer has been permitted/authenticated).
The applicant’s arguments center on the fact that a power module may not receive each of the signal broadcasts. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, electromagnetic induction (EM-induction; ¶[55] of Ogawa) is a process whereby EM waves are generated from a transmitter/primary- coil/antenna and received by a receiver/secondary-coil/antenna. The waves are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to spread in all directions from the transmitter/primary-coil/antenna. However, the strongest part is generally considered to be that which is noticed by receivers/secondary-coils/antennae. So, while a plurality of transmitters in a relatively small era may transmit power-signal which is received by one or more receivers [and thus induced as current], a certain transmitter may only be noticeable [subject to the tolerance by the sensor/processor/comparator/etc.] by a single or minority of the receivers. One reason for requiring a tolerance of induced power/current to recognize the induced power is due to efficiency reasons, since lower power induced can indicate it is not a good match [due to distance, orientation, frequency, etc.].
With all that in mind, Ogawa’s close transmitters, when two or more are operating at the same time, are received by each of the one or more receivers (see e.g. Figs. [3, 8, 10, 11]). However, it may only be recognized if the received power/current is above a tolerance threshold. The applicant did not claim what “receiving a signal broadcast” means [is it recognizing them, or only receiving the power on the coil].
Or in the alternative, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach that the input voltage to the power module is acquired. Or in the alternative, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach multiple transmitter signals are received by a receiver at the same time, and their noticeable signal strength is compared with each other.
Hwang teaches the input voltage to the power module is acquired (¶’s [13, 46-51, esp. 48-50], teaching the detection of voltage and communication of that information back to the transmitter, where Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate analogous structure with multiple transmitting circuits/power supply circuits, and Fig. 8 having analogous method steps to Ogawa and the present application). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that voltage, current, and wattage are commonly used to measure the reception of signals transmitted due to their simplicity, low cost, and ease of use [convenience].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa with Hwang to provide improved convenience, costs, and ease.
The applicant has argued that the combination of Ogawa and Hwang fails to demonstrate simultaneous reception of signals. The applicant has also argued that the vehicle/moving apparatus does not teach itself determining the degree of relationship claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for the prior art arguments, the applicant has been arguing limitations which were not claimed. 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., simultaneous transmission, power module determining the degree of relationship) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As explained to the applicant in the interview held June 4 2025, the applicant did not disclose [nor claim] simultaneous reception/transmission of signals. So arguing that a reference lacks such a feature is unconvincing. Furthermore, the applicant has not claimed [nor appears to disclose] the power module determining/calculating the degree of the relationship. Rather, it is charge/discharge control unit 10 [the preamble for claim 10] which performs this function. Similarly, Ogawa teaches this feature where device 13/33 performs the calculation of the degree of relationship. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted.
Or in the alternative, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach multiple transmitter signals are received by a receiver at the same time, and their noticeable signal strength is compared with each other.
Azam teaches multiple transmitter signals are received by a receiver at the same time, and their noticeable signal strength is compared with each other (¶[49]), where the selection is based upon improving efficiency (¶[49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa in view of Hwang with Azam to provide improved efficiency.
Independent Claim 10, Ogawa discloses a charging/discharging control device ([24, 48] of [11, 31, 31-1, 31-2, 31] inf Figs. [1-4, 7, 9, and 10]) comprising:
a controller configured to control a power module [24, 48] connected to any of a plurality of power systems (12-1, 12-2, 12-N, 32-1, 32-2, 32-3, 32-4, 32-N); and
a receiver (25, 49, 49-1, 49-2),
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a signal broadcast from each of the power systems via the receiver (¶’s [35-44], [s11, s12] of Fig. 5, s22 of Fig. 6, [1] of Fig. 7, Fig. 11);
acquire an input voltage inputted to the power module (s22 yes of fig. 6, if signal is noticeable, then the voltage would implicitly be acquired, see Fig. 11 and ¶’s [42, 68]);
determine a degree of relationship between the signal and the input voltage for each of the power systems (if there is a response, it means the supply source has generated a voltage on the receiving vehicle, which means the voltage is above zero, thus Fig. 11 shows this response to the relationship, so determination of the voltage being generated means a relationship has been determined, wherein the determination); and
control the power module based on the signal relating to the power system having the degree of relationship greater than or equal to a prescribed threshold (Figs. 5-7 and 11, as noted above, permits the charging to occur with the matching, optimized, transmission power system after the transfer has been permitted/authenticated).
The applicant’s arguments center on the fact that a power module may not receive each of the signal broadcasts. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, electromagnetic induction (EM-induction; ¶[55] of Ogawa) is a process whereby EM waves are generated from a transmitter/primary- coil/antenna and received by a receiver/secondary-coil/antenna. The waves are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to spread in all directions from the transmitter/primary-coil/antenna. However, the strongest part is generally considered to be that which is noticed by receivers/secondary-coils/antennae. So, while a plurality of transmitters in a relatively small era may transmit power-signal which is received by one or more receivers [and thus induced as current], a certain transmitter may only be noticeable [subject to the tolerance by the sensor/processor/comparator/etc.] by a single or minority of the receivers. One reason for requiring a tolerance of induced power/current to recognize the induced power is due to efficiency reasons, since lower power induced can indicate it is not a good match [due to distance, orientation, frequency, etc.].
With all that in mind, Ogawa’s close transmitters, when two or more are operating at the same time, are received by each of the one or more receivers (see e.g. Figs. [3, 8, 10, 11]). However, it may only be recognized if the received power/current is above a tolerance threshold. The applicant did not claim what “receiving a signal broadcast” means [is it recognizing them, or only receiving the power on the coil].
Or in the alternative, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach that the input voltage to the power module is acquired. Or in the alternative, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach multiple transmitter signals are received by a receiver at the same time, and their noticeable signal strength is compared with each other.
Hwang teaches the input voltage to the power module is acquired (¶’s [13, 46-51, esp. 48-50], teaching the detection of voltage and communication of that information back to the transmitter, where Figs. 5 & 6 demonstrate analogous structure with multiple transmitting circuits/power supply circuits, and Fig. 8 having analogous method steps to Ogawa and the present application). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that voltage, current, and wattage are commonly used to measure the reception of signals transmitted due to their simplicity, low cost, and ease of use [convenience].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa with Hwang to provide improved convenience, costs, and ease.
The applicant has argued that the combination of Ogawa and Hwang fails to demonstrate simultaneous reception of signals. The applicant has also argued that the vehicle/moving apparatus does not teach itself determining the degree of relationship claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for the prior art arguments, the applicant has been arguing limitations which were not claimed. 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., simultaneous transmission, power module determining the degree of relationship) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As explained to the applicant in the interview held June 4 2025, the applicant did not disclose [nor claim] simultaneous reception/transmission of signals. So arguing that a reference lacks such a feature is unconvincing. Furthermore, the applicant has not claimed [nor appears to disclose] the power module determining/calculating the degree of the relationship. Rather, it is charge/discharge control unit 10 [the preamble for claim 10] which performs this function. Similarly, Ogawa teaches this feature where device 13/33 performs the calculation of the degree of relationship. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted.
Or in the alternative, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach multiple transmitter signals are received by a receiver at the same time, and their noticeable signal strength is compared with each other.
Azam teaches multiple transmitter signals are received by a receiver at the same time, and their noticeable signal strength is compared with each other (¶[49]), where the selection is based upon improving efficiency (¶[49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa in view of Hwang with Azam to provide improved efficiency.
Dependent Claims 11 and 13, Ogawa [and/or the combination of Ogawa and Hwang] discloses the input voltage inputted to the power module is acquired upon receiving signals broadcast from the power systems; the degree of relationship between the signal and the input voltage is determined for each of the signals broadcast from the power systems; and the signal relating to the power system having the degree of relationship greater than or equal to the prescribed threshold is selected and the power module is controlled based on the selected signal (as explained above for Claims 1 and 10, the signal detected by Ogawa indicates a voltage value being detected, i.e. noticeable, above some threshold, where the degree would then be 0 or greater than 0, with Hwang explicitly teaching the acquiring of the voltage; applicant has not required multiple signals having a degree greater than a threshold like Claims 12 & 14, so Ogawa and/or the combination of Ogawa and Hwang meets this amended claim).
Dependent Claim 2, Ogawa discloses receiving the signal at least two or more time points for each of the power systems (since this operation repeats itself multiple times it is met, but in addition, as seen in Figs. 8 and 11, the signals are not just spikes, but have some duration to them, meaning they have two or more time points, finally A and D of the transmitters have 3 time points respectively).
Dependent Claim 3, Ogawa discloses receiving the signal for a prescribed time period or more for each of the power systems (¶[80] says the time period is a “certain period of time…”, i.e. a prescribed period of time).
Dependent Claim 4, Ogawa discloses determining the degree of relationship determined based on the signal for a predicted amount of change in power of the power module and an amount of change in the input voltage having a negative correlation to become larger than the degree of relationship determined based on the signal for the predicted amount of change in power and the amount of change in the input voltage having a positive correlation (if noticeable, it matches the predicted value, as shown in Figs. 5-7 and 11, where Hwang specifically teaches detecting voltage values, and thus power values which have changed).
Dependent Claim 8, Ogawa discloses determining the degree of relationship based on the signal having an intensity greater than or equal to a prescribed intensity (noticeable vs not-noticeable, as demonstrated for Fig. 11 and Figs. 5-7, where the inherent noticeable threshold to generate the comm signal of Fig. 11 would be the prescribed threshold for the sensor).
Dependent Claim 9, Ogawa discloses the signal is transmitted through wireless communications (¶’s [36, 37, 47, 54], where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a wireless power signal is capable of communication via e.g. in-band communication)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (USPGPN 20130200718) in view of Hwang (USPGPN 20150270718) and Azam et al (USPGPN 20200287424), further in view of Hao et al (USPGPN 20220060043).
Dependent Claim 5, Ogawa teaches the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal (see at least Figs. 8 & 11), and
Ogawa teaches the charging/discharging control method comprises: upon a degree of relationship determined based on the first signal and a degree of relationship determined based on the second signal being equal, redetermining the degrees of relationship based on the first signal and the second signal acquired after power of the power module is changed (Fig. 11 shows A and D being equal, where a future charging session would involve recalculating the degree).
To advance prosecution, assuming the applicant meant it was equal during the same charging session and recalculating due to that, Ogawa fails to explicitly teach that limitation.
Hao teaches determining the relationship is equal (the relationship is the same phase, and thus a positive coupling, ¶[108]) and recalculating based on it (¶’s [109, 110, 111, 113, 180]). Hao teaches this serves to improve the efficiency (¶[113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa in view of Hwang and Azam with Hao to provide improved efficiency.
Dependent Claims 6 and 7, Ogawa teaches the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal (see at least Figs. 8 & 11),
Ogawa is silent to the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal indicative of a first supply power adjustment in the first power system, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal indicative of a second supply power adjustment in the second power system, an absolute value of a first predicted amount of increase in power of the power module based on the first signal is a first amount of increase corresponding with the first supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the first signal, an absolute value of a second predicted amount of increase in power of the power module based on the second signal is a second amount of increase corresponding with the second supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the second signal, and the charging/discharging control method comprises performing a control of increasing power of the power module by a smaller amount of the first amount of increase and the second amount of increase [with respect to Claim 6], the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal indicative of a first supply power adjustment in the first power system, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal indicative of a second supply power adjustment in the second power system, an absolute value of a first predicted amount of decrease in power of the power module based on the first signal is a first amount of decrease corresponding with the first supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the first signal, an absolute value of a second predicted amount of decrease in power of the power module based on the second signal is a second amount of decrease corresponding with the second supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the second signal, and the charging/discharging control method comprises performing a control of decreasing power of the power module by a larger amount of the first amount of decrease and the second amount of decrease [with respect to Claim 7].
Hao teaches the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal indicative of a first supply power adjustment in the first power system, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal indicative of a second supply power adjustment in the second power system, an absolute value of a first predicted amount of increase in power of the power module based on the first signal is a first amount of increase corresponding with the first supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the first signal, an absolute value of a second predicted amount of increase in power of the power module based on the second signal is a second amount of increase corresponding with the second supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the second signal, and the charging/discharging control method comprises performing a control of increasing power of the power module by a smaller amount of the first amount of increase and the second amount of increase, the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal indicative of a first supply power adjustment in the first power system, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal indicative of a second supply power adjustment in the second power system, an absolute value of a first predicted amount of decrease in power of the power module based on the first signal is a first amount of decrease corresponding with the first supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the first signal, an absolute value of a second predicted amount of decrease in power of the power module based on the second signal is a second amount of decrease corresponding with the second supply power adjustment when the power module is controlled based on the second signal, and the charging/discharging control method comprises performing a control of decreasing power of the power module by a larger amount of the first amount of decrease and the second amount of decrease (¶’s [108-113, 180, 184]). Hao teaches this serves to improve the efficiency (¶[113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa in view of Hwang and Azam with Hao to provide improved efficiency.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al (USPGPN 20130200718) in view of Hwang (USPGPN 20150270718) and Azam et al (USPGPN 20200287424), further in view of Iwai et al (USPGPN 20160297314).
Dependent Claims 12 and 14, Ogawa discloses/teaches the signal relating to a first power system is a first signal, the signal relating to a second power system different from the first power system is a second signal, the charging/discharging control method further comprises selecting the first signal or the second signal having a higher degree of relationship and controlling the power module based on the selected first signal or second signal (as described above for Claims 1 & 10, respectively).
Ogawa is silent to the degree of relationship determined based on the first signal and the degree of relationship determined based on the second signal each being greater than or equal to the prescribed threshold.
Iwai teaches the degree of relationship determined based on the first signal and the degree of relationship determined based on the second signal each being greater than or equal to the prescribed threshold (Fig. 1 demonstrates analogous structure to both the present application and Ogawa, along with Fig. 2; method steps of Figs. 3-16, esp. [5-7 & 16] demonstrates a situation where multiple signals are observable, i.e. above a threshold, and the choice is made for the one with the higher degree of relationship, see ¶’s [68, 96, 104-113, 148, esp. [68, 104, 107], which describes that this method serves to reduce the time required for pairing/selecting).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa in view of Hwang Azam with Iwai to provide improved speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, the prior art discloses Claims 10 and 11, the power module is controlled by a charging/discharging control device mounted on a vehicle on which the power module is mounted, receiving the signal, acquiring the input voltage, determining the degree of relationship, and controlling the power module based on the signal are performed by the charging/discharging control device, the receiver included in the power module is a receiver of the charging/discharging control device, the plurality of power systems includes a first power system having a first broadcast area and a second power system having a second broadcast area at least partially overlapping the first broadcast area, an overlapping broadcast area including overlapping portions of the first broadcast area and the second broadcast area, the signal relating to the first power system is a first signal and the signal relating to the second power system is a second signal; the prior art fails to disclose the further inclusion of and combination with the charging/discharging control method further comprises receiving, by the charging/discharging control device, via the receiver:(i) the first signal broadcast from the first power system when the vehicle is positioned within the first broadcast area,(ii) the second signal broadcast from the second power system when the vehicle is positioned within the second broadcast area, and (iii) the first signal broadcast from the first power system and the second signal broadcast from the second power system when the vehicle is positioned within the overlapping broadcast area.
Regarding Dependent Claim 18, the prior art discloses Claim 1, the power module is controlled by a charging/discharging control device mounted on a vehicle on which the power module is mounted, receiving the signal, acquiring the input voltage, determining the degree of relationship, and controlling the power module based on the signal are performed by the charging/discharging control device, the receiver included in the power module is a receiver of the charging/discharging control device, the plurality of power systems includes a first power system having a first broadcast area and a second power system having a second broadcast area at least partially overlapping the first broadcast area at an overlapping broadcast area, determining a first degree of relationship between the first signal and the acquired input voltage; determining a second degree of relationship between the second signal and the acquired input voltage; selecting a signal of the first signal and the second signal having the degree of relationship greater than or equal to the prescribed threshold; and controlling the power module based on the selected signal; the prior art fails to disclose the further inclusion of and combination with the signal relating to the first power system is a first signal for adjusting supply power in the first power system and the signal relating to the second power system is a second signal for adjusting supply power in the second power system, and the charging/discharging control method further comprises, by the charging/discharging control device:(i) receiving, upon the power module being positioned within the first broadcast area other than the overlapping broadcast area, the first signal broadcast from the first power system via the receiver and controlling the power module based on the first signal;(ii) receiving, upon the power module being positioned within the second broadcast area other than the overlapping broadcast area, the second signal broadcast from the second power system via the receiver and controlling the power module based on the second signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859