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 and corresponding amendments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a) written description rejections; applicant’s amendments and corresponding arguments are not persuasive; the 112(a) for accessing the database was given of efficiency values was given in regards to the calculation of those values; yes the specification discloses using the wireless charger (or vehicle) to collect corresponding data inputs and then general directs to calculate some “efficiency value” based on those inputs. The written description was given as the specification only discloses this general functional (claimed at an apply it level of guidance) with no suggestions of guidance as to how exactly to calculate this efficiency value. The applicant then asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize charging efficiency as a ratio or metric of received power versus transmitted power; this is not persuasive in that the applicant’s specification never discloses this definition or provide any suggestion of it as such. Further the specification at no point that “charging efficiency data” is or includes the transmitted power and/or the received power. Further if this definition is used this creates an additional written description issue in that (1) the applicant’s specification never discloses this definition and (2) it is unclear how the wireless charging transmitter detects the received (by the vehicle) power; the applicant’s specification at no point gives an teachings or suggestion that the power transmitter is capable of detecting the received power. The applicant’s specification at most discloses generally that the vehicle and wireless charging transceiver are equipped to send and receive messages; but it does not at any point suggest that those message are/include received power.
As such the applicant’s specification only generally discloses some “efficiency value” which is calculated based on some generalized “efficiency data” there is no guidance as to what the efficiency data is nor how to transformation this generalized efficiency data into the efficiency value. While the applicant does disclose this efficiency values over a range of speeds are sorted/based on the vehicle type and road type (Table 1) this does not suggest or provide any guidance as to how to calculate said efficiency values.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections while it is understood that efficiency values are a numerical value representing its namesake this is still indefinite in that from the given examples there are multiple different values which one could consider to be an “charging efficiency value” or not depending on if/how one defines “efficiency” in the context of battery charging. The applicant’s specification provide no guidance as to what is considered “efficiency” in the context of the invention thus the general assertion that it is a numerical values.
In addition to the previous 112 rejections; the applicant’s specification has introduced new matter in that the originally filed claims and specification at no point disclose “power information”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 additionally 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 amended claims, while more detailed in the storage of the wireless efficiency values still has the same underlying lack of adequate written description as in the final rejection; while these “efficiency values” are now recited as being stored (Predetermined) in a database this still does not describe how this database of “efficiency values” which was initially detected via a wireless charger was calculated/populated or determined in the first place.
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 and some generalized “efficiency data”. Nor is a clear definition or example of want is meant by “efficiency” described in the specification. As such while the amended claims now define where these values are initially calculated it still does not actually disclose how those values are actually calculated.
Claims 2 and 5 depend on claim 1 and inherit the lack of adequate written description.
Regarding Claim 6, is rejected for lack of adequate written description for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, (1) the specification never clearly details how to measure, calculate, or even the general definition of wireless charging “efficiency values”, even though the claims now recite now a database with prestored values initially calculated/detected by the wireless charger this still has the same issue as the original limitations regarding “efficiency values”, as the specification provides no guidance as to how to calculate or determine these values beyond that is based on some undefined “efficiency data”, additionally claim 6 still recites the “determine an optimal driving speed” for each vehicle type based on these values, but the specification never clearly defines or explains how this optimal speed is determined in the first place nor what constitutes an ”optimal” speed in terms of “efficiency”; while is can be intuited that this optimal speed is the speed which achieves/corresponds to the proper “efficiency” value this still runs into the same issue as it is not adequately described as to what is meant by “Efficiency” such that one of ordinary skill would not be able to then determine/calculate/record a given driving speed as the “optimal” speed.
The claims are additionally rejected for introducing new matter not disclosed by the applicant’s originally filed claims and specification. “wherein the wireless charging efficiency values are collected based on power information measured by a power measurement unit of a wireless charger, the wireless charger including the wireless power transmitter;” is not disclosed in the specification; there is no reference to “power information” found in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 2, 5-6 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.
Regarding the independent claims 1 and 6, the “efficiency value” renders the scope of protection unclear in that in the underlying context (of charging a vehicle’s battery) efficiency has multiple different meanings to one of ordinary skill in the art, meaning that absent guidance as to what is meant generally meant by “efficiency”, it is effectively functioning as a relative term whose definition would vary from one person to the next and be limited by only their own definition/judgement as to what is “efficient”.
For example “efficiency value” could be referring to what value/parameters would be the quickest to charge the battery (i.e. the most temporally efficient); or “efficient” could mean the value/parameters which provides the most amount of battery charge increase per unit of energy sent by the road charger (i.e. the most per unit energy efficient); or it “efficient” could mean the value/parameters which provides the greatest amount of total battery charge increase (i.e. the most total energy efficient).
All three examples would fall under the broadest reasonable interpretation of wireless charging efficiency; however it is easily conceivable that the most efficient temporally value/parameters may at the same time be very energy inefficient (i.e. the speed/charging profile which is the quickest to charge may also result is relatively large amount of energy being sent from the transmitters being wasted/not actually reaching the vehicles battery system).
Thus in this hypothetical example it could be argued to be both efficient and inefficient at the same time depending on what a given person considers important when defining “efficient” in the context of battery charging. As such given that the applicant’s specification does not provide any examples or definitions as to what is meant by “wireless charging efficiency” this means one of ordinary skill in the art can only go by their own intuition/the plain meaning of “efficiency” which results in the bounds of the claims being indefinite regarding what constitutes efficient or inefficient charging.
This lack of clarity is further compounded in claim 6 in that the recited corresponding vehicle speed to “maximally secured” efficiency value would naturally vary based on which of the hypothetical definition used, at which point if a given vehicle could be argued as both operating and not operating at the maximally secured efficiency travel speed and thus it is indefinite if wireless charger instructing such a speed control would be infringing on the applicant’s claims or not.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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