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 filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments concerning the previous 112(a) written description rejections for claims 3 and 7; while these claims are now cancelled at the issue subject matter (i.e. the charging efficiency values and their calculations) now appear in the independent claims 1 and 6 in slightly rewritten form; as such the 112(a) written description rejections remain. Further Claim 6 still recites the at issue elements, and while amended to recite that the efficiency values are “pre-stored” this still does not fix the lack of written description in that even though they are pre-stored the specification still lacks adequate description of how these pre-stored values were calculated in the first place.
The 112(a) written description rejections still apply to claim 6 and due to the amendments (integrating similar subject matter from claim 3 into claim 1) now also apply to claim 1 and its dependents.
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 1-2, 5-6 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it was amended such that it now recites subject matter “determine an efficiency value of wireless charging during vehicle driving based on a type of the vehicle and identification of a road on which the vehicle is driving;” this limitation is more or less equivalent to the “measure efficiency” of now cancelled claim 3, while claim 1 now also recites that the efficiency value is based on a “type of the vehicle” and “identification of a road on which the vehicle is driving” this still lacks adequate written description in that the specification never details how to calculate an efficiency value/expected efficiency value from a type of vehicle and identification of a road. i.e. the “charging efficiency” value (K) is only ever functionally described in the specification no details beyond a general linking to variable (vehicle type and road) are given. As such claim 1 lacks adequate written description for substantially the same reasons as now cancelled claim 3.
Claims 2 and 5 depend on claim 1 and inherit the lack of written description concerning the “determine an efficiency value…”
Regarding Claim 6, it still recites the “collect wireless charging efficiency data according to…” limitation which was rejected previously for lack of written description, while claim 6 was amended to further recite that these values are according “pre-stored efficiency values, each pre-stored efficiency value beinq associated…”, this doesn’t overcome the lack of adequate written description in that (1) the specification never clearly details this “efficiency data”, even though it is now “according to” prestored values this still has the same issue as the original limitation “according to” means that “efficiency data” covers various (not detailed in the specification) parameters, nor does the specification clearly describe how to calculate an efficiency value from the efficiency data; additionally claim 6 still recite the “determine an optimal driving speed” for each vehicle type, but the specification never clearly defines or explains how this optimal speed is determined in the first place.
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(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe et al, US 20190039470 A1, in view of itself.
Regarding Claim 8, Moghe et al teaches “A wireless power charger for wireless charging of a vehicle during driving, comprising: a plurality of wireless power transmitters configured to wirelessly transmit power to a wireless power receiver;”( [0022] FIG. 1B illustrates an example wireless power transfer (WPT) system 140, according to various embodiments. In particular, WPT system 140 may include any or all of the following components: a vehicle 160, a roadside unit (RSU) 150, one or more ground-based charging coils 164, and/or a remote supervisory service 170. During operation, WPT system 140 may be operable to provide electrical charge to a local battery of vehicle 160, which may itself be an electric vehicle (e.g., either a fully-electric or hybrid electric vehicle).);” a transceiver configured to transmit and receive messages to and from the wireless power receiver;”(see figure 1b posted above the RSU/ground chargers can receive and send information with the vehicle (power receiver) thus they are equipped with transceivers);” ; and a controller configured to control the wireless power transmitters, wherein the controller is configured to: identify a mounting position of the wireless power receiver based on vehicle identification information received from a vehicle for wireless charging;”( [0038] FIGS. 3A-3D illustrate an example of powering a ground-based charging coil for an upcoming vehicle, according to various embodiments. Continuing the example of FIG. 1B, assume in FIG. 3A that vehicle 160 is in communication with supervisory service 170 and/or RSU 150 that are part of a vehicle WPT system. During operation, vehicle 160 may send data regarding the vehicle characteristics to service 170 and/or RSU 150 for further processing. Example vehicle characteristics 302 may include, but are not limited to, any or all of the following: [0039] A location of vehicle 160—for example, this information can include a Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate from vehicle 160, navigation information from a subsystem of vehicle 160, a signal that can be used to triangulate the location of vehicle 160, etc. … [0042] Make, model, and/or options of vehicle 160—this information can be used to determine the specific charging capabilities of vehicle 160 from the factory. For example, a certain manufacturer may offer upgraded charging systems on certain models over others (e.g., a larger capacity battery, a larger charging coil, etc.). [0043] Coil information for vehicle 160—this information may include data regarding the physical dimensions of vehicle-based charging coil 162 and/or the location of coil 162 on vehicle 160. For example, this information may indicate the size and/or shape of coil 162 (e.g., length and width measurements, if coil 162 is rectangular, a radius measurement, if coil 162 is circular, etc.). In another example, the coil information regarding coil 162 may indicate the distance between coil 162 and one or more sides of vehicle 160 (e.g., coil 162 may be ⅔ of the way from the front of vehicle 160, x-number of feet or inches from the passenger or driver's side of vehicle 160, etc.). This information can be used to indicate whether coil 162 is perfectly centered on vehicle 160 or, if not, its offsets from the center. In a further example, the information regarding coil 162 can also indicate the height of coil 162 relative to the ground (e.g., a height of M1 inches when vehicle 160 is not moving, a height of M2 inches when vehicle 160 is traveling at slow speeds, a height of M3 inches when vehicle 160 is traveling at highway speeds, etc.). In various embodiments, the coil information for vehicle 160 can also be retrieved (e.g., by service 170), based on the make, model, and/or options of vehicle 160. );” and generate information about a lane for wireless charging or information about a wireless charging line alignment for wireless charging during driving based on the identified mounting position and a mounting position of a charging line on a wireless charging road during driving.”( [0053] In case of dynamic WPT, supervisory service 170 may also communicate charging information 304 back to vehicle 160 regarding the charging process. …
[0054] In some embodiments, charging information 304 may include alignment information that can be used by vehicle 160 to ensure that vehicle-based charging coil 162 is properly aligned with ground-based charging coil 164, when vehicle 160 passes over coil 164. For example, charging information 304 may indicate to vehicle 160 the lane in which coil 164 is situated and potentially the proper position for vehicle 160 within that lane. …
[0055] In situations when ground-based charging coil 164 is in the center of the lane and vehicle-based charging coil 162 is located at the center of vehicle 160 (e.g., in terms of side-to-side dimensions), then coil alignment is relatively easy and vehicle 160 simply needs to drive down the center of the lane. However, in many cases, ground-based charging coil 164 may be offset from the center of the lane (e.g., six inches to the right of lane center, etc.) or vehicle-based charging coil 162 may not be located centrally on vehicle 160 (e.g., four inches left of vehicle center, etc.). In such cases, including alignment information in charging information 304 allows vehicle 160 to be directed towards the proper lane and alignment, for maximum charging.” Here teaches determine alignment information (where in the lane a vehicle should be) to charge properly);” and transmit a charging request response to the vehicle”([0095]-[0097] In response to a charging request from the vehicle the supervisory service sends a response ot the vehicle which can include chargingin information/lane alignment)
Moghe does not explicitly teach “response to the vehicle to enable the vehicle to activate an autonomous driving mode to perform vehicle steering control and driving speed control based on the generated information.”
Moghe however does disclose that autonomous vehicles (in autonomous driving modes) are more efficient at receiving wireless power transfers compared to manually controlled vehicles. ([0089] While the use of only autonomous vehicles allows for full optimization of the power transfer process by the WPT system, this situation is highly unlikely to occur in the near future. More likely, the traffic along road 166 may be interspersed with autonomous vehicles, non-autonomous vehicles, charging vehicles that are to receive charge from the WPT system, and/or non-charging vehicles.” and [0116] “Note that while autonomous vehicles can take the greatest advantage of the techniques herein, the techniques can also be used to control traffic that includes non-autonomous vehicles. For example, in the case of a non-autonomous vehicle, a display can show suggested speed to the driver for optimum power transfer. “)
As such while not explicitly teaching transfer from manual operation/driving to autonomous operation/driving, Moghe does teach that autonomous vehicles are preferable/better equipped for wireless charging than manual. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Moghe to include switching of manual operation of a vehicle to autonomous driving/operation in response to starting of wireless energy transfer/charging, the logic naturally flows that since autonomous control/vehicles are more efficient at receiving energy transfers then should a currently manually operated vehicle have the capabilities to be controlled autonomously then the vehicle should switch to autonomous operation. One would be motivated to implement this handover in order to improve the efficiency of operation/increase the amount of energy which can be charged into the vehicle’s battery by more fully optimizing the speed and positioning of the vehicle. Moghe teaches this improvement of autonomous (over manual) vehicles in ([0089] While the use of only autonomous vehicles allows for full optimization of the power transfer process by the WPT system, this situation is highly unlikely to occur in the near future. More likely, the traffic along road 166 may be interspersed with autonomous vehicles, non-autonomous vehicles, charging vehicles that are to receive charge from the WPT system, and/or non-charging vehicles.)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Moghe et al teaches “The wireless charger according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to: generate steering control information of the vehicle based on the information about a lane for wireless charging during driving and the information about a wireless charging line alignment.”( [0054] In some embodiments, charging information 304 may include alignment information that can be used by vehicle 160 to ensure that vehicle-based charging coil 162 is properly aligned with ground-based charging coil 164, when vehicle 160 passes over coil 164. For example, charging information 304 may indicate to vehicle 160 the lane in which coil 164 is situated and potentially the proper position for vehicle 160 within that lane. In addition, service 170 may also determine the optimal lane position for vehicle 160 and include this in charging information 304, so as to maximize the transfer of power during charging by ground-based charging coil 164 (e.g., such that the overlap of coils 162 and 164 is maximized).
[0055] In situations when ground-based charging coil 164 is in the center of the lane and vehicle-based charging coil 162 is located at the center of vehicle 160 (e.g., in terms of side-to-side dimensions), then coil alignment is relatively easy and vehicle 160 simply needs to drive down the center of the lane. However, in many cases, ground-based charging coil 164 may be offset from the center of the lane (e.g., six inches to the right of lane center, etc.) or vehicle-based charging coil 162 may not be located centrally on vehicle 160 (e.g., four inches left of vehicle center, etc.). In such cases, including alignment information in charging information 304 allows vehicle 160 to be directed towards the proper lane and alignment, for maximum charging. For example, charging information 304 may indicate that vehicle 160 should drive ten inches to the right of lane center, to maximize the overlap, if coil 164 is six inches to the right of the center of the lane and coil 162 is four inches to the left of the center of vehicle 160. This relatively small change of ten inches may lead to a significant increase in the percentage of overlap between coils 162 and 164 and, therefore, the power transfer.
[0056] Implementation of the recommended lane and alignment can be achieved either autonomously, if vehicle 160 is so capable, or via feedback to the driver. For example, vehicle 160 may be equipped to translate charging information 304 into alerts for the driver of vehicle 160, such as voice alerts, video alerts (e.g., on a dash-based display), or even augmented reality alerts via a windshield-based display, to direct the driver to move vehicle 160 to a specific lane and/or how to position vehicle 160 within the lane.” Here teaches that the lane information/position including where the vehicle should be positioned/placed to overlap with the (road/ground) wireless chargers, from the offsetting relative to the lane this steering/positioning is known to be a line)
Regarding claim 10, modified Moghe teaches “The wireless charger according to claim 8, wherein the information about a wireless charging line alignment includes: a virtual line configured to interconnect coils of the plurality of wireless power transmitters installed under a surface of the road; and/or relative position information between the virtual line and lanes on the road.”( [0055] In situations when ground-based charging coil 164 is in the center of the lane and vehicle-based charging coil 162 is located at the center of vehicle 160 (e.g., in terms of side-to-side dimensions), then coil alignment is relatively easy and vehicle 160 simply needs to drive down the center of the lane. However, in many cases, ground-based charging coil 164 may be offset from the center of the lane (e.g., six inches to the right of lane center, etc.) or vehicle-based charging coil 162 may not be located centrally on vehicle 160 (e.g., four inches left of vehicle center, etc.). In such cases, including alignment information in charging information 304 allows vehicle 160 to be directed towards the proper lane and alignment, for maximum charging.” Alignment information includes relative position (offset) of the wireless power chargers from the lane center)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights