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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Accordingly claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 13 have been amendment. Claims 9 and 14 has been cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-13 remains pending in this application. It also includes remarks and arguments.
Drawings
The drawings objection (s) are withdrawn based on the amendment and remarks filed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 objections are withdrawn based on the amendment and remarks field.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not clearly point out how the DC-DC command value created or set within the DC-DC converter via use of the MG or control device.
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 5 and 13 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. The claim does not explicitly introduce “a feedback circuit” as a distinct claimed limitation and the specification does not appear to provide any written support for an feedback control or feedback circuit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites “DC-DC conversion command value in the DC-DC converter is set to a value (i) that compensates for part or all of a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus and (ii) for which a desired bus average voltage according to required power of the rotating electric machine is acquired” however it is not clear or understood how is the set value of the DC-DC conversion command value configured or created (using MG and/or battery) within the DC-DC converter? The phrase “DC-DC conversion command value” hints at a controller. However, the specification disclose that the DC-DC converter adjusts the power exchanged between the power bus 10 and the capacitor (power input to and output from capacitor 7) in [0052]. Further, in para. [0055] it recites thus, in the vehicle 1 according to the embodiment, in order that the DWPT power (PDWPT) falls between a power upper limit line L1 and a power lower limit line L2 illustrated in FIG. 3, a part or all of the fluctuation component of the power received by the wireless power receiver 4 from the wireless power transmitters 21 in the dynamic wireless power transfer (power supplied from the wireless power receiver 4 to the power bus 10) (power ripple in the dynamic wireless power transfer system) is compensated by an input and output of the power to and from the capacitor 7 via the DC-DC converter 6. As a result, in the vehicle 1 according to the embodiment, the fluctuation of the bus voltage due to the power ripple in the dynamic wireless power transfer system can be reduced, and charging and discharging of the battery 3 due to the fluctuation in the bus voltage (the power ripple) can be controlled, whereby it is possible to reduce the capacity of the battery 3 and to control the deterioration of the battery 3, for example. Note that it is possible to reduce a loss by using, as the DC-DC converter 6, a small-capacity DC-DC converter sufficient for converting the power input to and output from the capacitor 7. However it does not appear to be any type of controller or control device used to operate or set the DC-DC command value within the DC-DC converter so how does the DC-DC do these things without a controller or control device? Therefore, for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-4, and 6-7 are rejected under because the claims are dependent upon base claim 1.
Claims 5 and 13, “wherein feedback control of the DC-DC conversion command value is performed according to a difference between a target bus voltage and an actual bus voltage” is not clear or understood how the feedback control of the DC-DC conversion command value is performed or created within the DC-DC converter without any mentioning of a feedback control device or circuit in the respective claim. The claim does not explicitly introduce “a feedback circuit” as a distinct claimed limitation. Therefore, for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 8, recites “wherein a bus target voltage is set in such a manner that the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the first power supply is reduced in a case where a side of the wireless power receiver does not have a regeneration function of returning the power to a system side and the rotating electrical machine performs regenerative operation” however it is not clear or understood how the bus target voltage is set in the system. Specification, in Para. [0064] it discloses in Fig. 6 a calculation method of a bus voltage prediction value and that the bus voltage prediction value estimates the bus voltage (not sure if this bus voltage is the same as the bus target voltage or something different) from the characteristics of the battery (relationship between the SOC and the voltage of the battery in para. [0067]. Further, the recitation “in a case where” language is a hypothetical statement based on the phrase, for example in a case which is treated the same as (if). So what happens if the conditional phrase is never triggered? There is no need to analyze the consequences if there is not if, then we don’t have to consider the “then”.
Claim 10, recites “ a DC-DC conversion command value in the DC-DC converter is set to a value that compensates for part or all of a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus” however it is not clear or understood how is the set value of the DC-DC conversion command value configured or created within the DC-DC converter? The phrase “DC-DC conversion command value” hints at a controller. However, the specification disclose that the DC-DC converter adjusts the power exchanged between the power bus 10 and the capacitor (power input to and output from capacitor 7) in [0052]. Further, in para. [0055] it recites Thus, in the vehicle 1 according to the embodiment, in order that the DWPT power (PDWPT) falls between a power upper limit line L1 and a power lower limit line L2 illustrated in FIG. 3, a part or all of the fluctuation component of the power received by the wireless power receiver 4 from the wireless power transmitters 21 in the dynamic wireless power transfer (power supplied from the wireless power receiver 4 to the power bus 10) (power ripple in the dynamic wireless power transfer system) is compensated by an input and output of the power to and from the capacitor 7 via the DC-DC converter 6. As a result, in the vehicle 1 according to the embodiment, the fluctuation of the bus voltage due to the power ripple in the dynamic wireless power transfer system can be reduced, and charging and discharging of the battery 3 due to the fluctuation in the bus voltage (the power ripple) can be controlled, whereby it is possible to reduce the capacity of the battery 3 and to control the deterioration of the battery 3, for example. Note that it is possible to reduce a loss by using, as the DC-DC converter 6, a small-capacity DC-DC converter sufficient for converting the power input to and output from the capacitor 7. However it does not appear to be any type of controller or control device used to operate or set the DC-DC command value within the DC-DC converter so how does the DC-DC do these things without a controller or control device? Therefore, for the purpose of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under because the claims are dependent upon base claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Sato et al. (US 2022/0149657) and in view of Imamura et al. (US 2015/0314685).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sato et al. discloses a power supply [see 20 in Fig. 15] for a moving body, such as a vehicle [see Figs. 1 and 15 movable object 10 and 0063] comprising:
a wireless power receiver [see 200 in fig. 5] that receives power in a wireless manner from a plurality of wireless power transmitters [see 120 in Fig. 15 and 120a 120b in Fig. 1] arranged at predetermined intervals in a vehicle [see 10 in Figs. 1 and 15] traveling direction on a traveling path [see 30 in Fig. 1 and 0034];
a rotating electric machine [see 330 in Fig. 15] capable of generating driving force for traveling [see 0076];
an inverter [such that the motor 330 in Fig. 15 includes a motor control circuit, not shown in Fig. 15, but disclosed in 0076], which may include an inverter] that exchanges power with the rotating electric machine [see 330 in Fig. 15];
a first power supply [see electrical storage device 320A in Fig. 15 which may include a battery or a capacitor and 0039-0040 and 0074];
a second power supply [see electrical storage device 320B in Fig. 15 can include a battery or capacitor 0103]; and
a DC-DC converter that exchanges power with the second power supply [such that the switching circuit 270 in Fig. 15 has configuration and operation similar to switching circuit 270 in Fig. 12, which includes DC-DC converter 300 and 0095 and 0103],
wherein the wireless power receiver [see 200 in Fig. 15], the inverter [such that the motor 330 in Fig. 15 includes a motor control circuit, not shown in Fig. 15, but disclosed in 0076], the DC-DC converter [such that the switching circuit 270 in Fig. 15 has configuration and operation similar to switching circuit 270 in Fig. 12, which includes DC-DC converter 300 and 0095 and 0103], and the first power supply [see electrical storage device 320A in Fig. 15] are electrically connected in parallel to a power bus that supplies the power from the wireless power receiver [see 200] to the inverter[see 200 in Fig. 15], the inverter [such that the motor 330 in Fig. 15 includes a motor control circuit, not shown in Fig. 15, but disclosed in 0076],
the second power supply [see electrical storage device 320B in Fig. 15] and the power bus are electrically connected via the DC-DC converter [such that the switching circuit 270 in Fig. 15 has configuration and operation similar to switching circuit 270 in Fig. 12, which includes DC-DC converter 300 and 0095 and 0103], and the second power supply is configured to reduce a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus [such that the second storage device 320B in Fig. 15 may include a capacitor, see 0103 which is shown in Fig. 15 connected in parallel at the output the DC/DC converter included in switching circuit 270. Therefore, the capacitor configuration would inherently react to power that comes across it. This includes reduce a fluctuation. The capacitor including in the second power supply has the ability to store and release electrical energy which allows it to act as a buffer for a DC power supply, smoothing out the voltage and providing a more stable output]. Furthermore, the limitation that “a DC-DC conversion command value in the DC-DC converter is set to a value (i) that compensates for part or all of a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus and (ii) for which a desired bus average voltage according to required power of the rotating electric machine is acquired” is 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.
Sato et al. does not explicitly disclose that the second power supply [see 320B in Fig. 15] having higher output density and lower capacity density than the first power supply [see electrical storage device 320A in Fig. 15 as disclosed in 0039-0040 and 0103].
However, Imamura et al. in [Fig. 1] discloses a second power supply [see electrical storage device A2 in Fig. 1] having higher output density and lower capacity density than the first power supply [see electrical storage device A1 in Fig. 1 and 0032-0033 and 0035].
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 second power supply as taught by Sato et al. with the second power supply, wherein the second power supply has a higher output density and lower capacity density than the first power supply as taught by Imamura et al. in order to provide rapid charge and discharge capabilities.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses the vehicle according to claims 1 and 10, wherein the wireless power receiver [see Sato et al., 200 in Fig. 15] and the power bus are electrically connected directly [the power bus are the conductive wires connected to the operational components within the power receiver 200 in Fig. 15].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses the vehicle according to claims 1 and 10, wherein the first power supply is a secondary battery [see Sato et al. and electrical storage device 320A in Fig. 15 and 0039], and the second power supply is a capacitor [see Sato et al. and electrical storage device 320B in Fig. 15 and 0103].
Regarding claim 4, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1 and, wherein the fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver [see Sato et al., 200 in Fig. 15] to the power bus is compensated by the second power supply [see Sato et al. and 320B in Fig. 15]. Furthermore, the limitation that “wherein the fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus is compensated by the second power supply” is 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. Furthermore, support is this can be found in that the second power supply is a capacitor. The capacitor compensates just because it is a capacitor (it can absorb and release power) – the claim appears to simply restate this electrical fact.
Regarding claim 5 and 13, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses
the vehicle according to claims 4 and 10, wherein feedback control of the DC-DC conversion command value is performed according to a difference between a target bus voltage and an actual bus voltage [such that the switching circuit 270 in Fig. 15 of Sato et al. has configuration and operation similar to switching circuit 270 in Fig. 12, which includes DC-DC converter 300 and 0060 and 0095].
Regarding claim 6, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1. Further, Sato et al. discloses the vehicle is configured so that bus voltage increase as power consumption of the rotating electric machine is larger [such that the motor 330 may receive fluctuations of the transmission power, for example voltage and current along the bus voltage or the output voltage, e.g. load impedance fluctuations meaning a bus voltage would change as power consumption of the motor, see 330 in Fig. 15] has increased or is larger [see 0042-0044, 0054 and 0090].
Regarding claim 7, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1. Further, Sato et al. discloses the vehicle is configured so that bus voltage is set according to power consumption of the rotating electric machine and average received power of the wireless power receiver[such that the motor 330 may receive fluctuations of the transmission power, for example voltage and current along the bus voltage or the output voltage, e.g. load impedance fluctuations meaning a bus voltage would change as power consumption of the motor, see 330 in Fig. 15 and 0039, 0042-0044, 0060 and 0095] and average received power of the wireless power receiver [see 0039, 0060, 0095].
Regarding claim 8, Sato et al. in view of Imamura et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 6,wherein a bus target voltage is set in such a manner that the power supplied from the wireless power receiver [see Sato et al., 200 in Fig. 15] to the first power supply [see Sato et al. and 320A] is reduced in a case where a side of the wireless power receiver does not have a regeneration function of returning the power to a system side and the rotating electrical machine [see Sato et al. and 300 in Fig. 15] performs regenerative operation [see Sato et al. and 0039 and 0060 and 0095].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue with respect to claims 1 and 10, that Sato et al. does not disclose DC-DC conversion command value in the DC-DC converter is set to a value that compensates for part or all of a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus and for which a desired bus average voltage according to required power of the rotating electric machine is acquired. While the examiner agrees that Sato et al. is silent in its disclosure of its electrical storage device 320B being configured to reduce any such fluctuation component. The examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assessment in that Sato et al. does not disclose the second power supply is configured to reduce a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus because Sato et al. in [Fig. 15] structure of the second power supply comprising a capacitor connected in parallel to the output of the DC/DC converter is the same way structurally as the Applicants drawings and recited in claims 1 and 10. The language of configured to reduce a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus is descriptive of how the capacitor would react to power fluctuations. Therefore, since the prior art of Sato et al. in [Fig. 15] discloses the same structure, it would react in the same way. Furthermore, the limitation that
the DC-DC converter is set to a value that compensates for part or all of a fluctuation component of the power supplied from the wireless power receiver to the power bus and for which a desired bus average voltage according to required power of the rotating electric machine is acquired” is 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. Therefore, the combination of the prior art references has the same structure of the Applicants drawings, which would react in the same way to a command value being set by some external device. Applicants is not claiming the specifics of the converter or how it is being controlled.
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 2/21/26
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836