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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 9/28/2024.
Claims 1-17 have been amended.
Claims 18-20 have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 9/28/2024 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Fig. 3 and 4 show only item numbers and thus fail to show descriptive detail. Please provide descriptive labels in addition or substitution to the item numbers in Fig. 3 and 4. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“Signal detection unit” in claim 1.
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function, here using the term “Unit”;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”, here not using a specific placeholder but describing the “unit” linked to the functional language “Signal Detection;” and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, here the claim does not describe a mechanism by which a signal is detected,
Therefore, “Signal detection unit” in Claim 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) according to the specification ¶ 0031 to mean “In a signal detection unit, the positioning signal is picked up, for example, by the inductive charging device and provided in such a way that it can be sampled in an analog-to- digital conversion unit. The signal detection unit here includes circuits, wherein at least one circuit includes the first sensor winding and another circuit includes the second sensor winding. The circuits can contain additional components and are designed such that the voltage signals can be further processed with as little effort as possible.”
“Signal Evaluation unit” in claim 1.
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function, here using the term “Unit”;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”, here not using a specific placeholder but describing the “unit” linked to the functional language “Signal Evaluation;” and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, here the claim does not describe a mechanism by which a signal is evaluated,
Therefore, “Signal evaluation unit” in Claim 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) according to the specification ¶ 0032-0033 to mean “The analog-digital conversion unit can be part of an evaluation unit […] these can preferably be implemented as logical blocks in a computing unit”
“Flux guiding element configured to guide” in claim 17.
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function, here using the term “element”;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”, here using the phrase “configured to” and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, here the claim does not describe a form or material for the flux guiding element,
Therefore, “flux guiding element configured to guide” in Claim 17 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) according to the specification ¶ 0069 to mean “The flux guiding element is a magnetic core for the energy transmission winding.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
The term “extend at least approximately parallel” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least approximately parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of parallelism, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer et al (WO 2016209514, hereinafter “Widmer 514,”) in view of Kilic et al (DE 102014202747, hereinafter “Kilic,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Widmer 514 teaches:
A method for positioning a vehicle having a mobile inductive charging device in a defined position in relation to a stationary inductive charging device, (Widmer 514 ¶ 0003 lines 1-2 “According to some implementations, an apparatus for determining a relative position of a wireless power transmitter from a wireless power receiver is provided,”)
at least one of the mobile inductive charging device and the stationary inductive charging device including a first sensor winding with a first radial longitudinal direction and a second sensor winding with a second radial longitudinal direction, the first radial longitudinal direction and the second radial longitudinal direction are arranged at a first angle of 70° to 110° in relation to one another, […] (Widmer 514 ¶ 0080 lines 1-23 “a 3 -axis magnetic field generator and a 3 -axis magnetic field sensor based on an orthogonal arrangement of coils 602, 604, 606, 612, 614, 616 in accordance with some implementations. The coils 602, 604, 606, 612, 614, 616 may be multi-turn wire loops or coils with or without a magnetic core. The generator coils 602, 604, 606 (e.g., first coil 602, second coil 604, and third coil 606, respectively) are arranged orthogonal to one another and are configured to be driven by respective currents […] to generate magnetic fields having magnetic moments in orthogonal directions, e.g., on a %'-, y'-, and z'-axis of the same generator coordinate frame previously described in connection with FIGs. 4A-4D. The same is true for the sense coils 612, 614, 616. If driven by respective currents, they would generate magnetic moments in orthogonal directions, e.g., on a x-, y-, and z-axis of the sensor's coordinate frame that may be arbitrarily rotated relative to that of the generator, […] However, in operation, magnetic flux from the magnetic fields generated by the generator coils 602, 604, 606 may flow through the sense coils 612, 614, 616 and generate respective voltages across the terminals of each of the sense coils 612, 614, 616. Where only two of the sense coils 612, 614, 616 are utilized, e.g., the first sense coil 612 and the second sense coil 614, a two-axis sensor may be formed.,” describing coils 602 and 604 orthogonal (90°, between 70° and 110°) from one another, as shown in Fig. 22)
PNG
media_image1.png
266
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[…] the method comprising: generating a first voltage signal in the first sensor winding and a second voltage signal in the second sensor winding via a positioning signal; (Widmer 514 ¶ 0004 lines 2-5 “The method comprises generating a respective voltage signal by each of a plurality of sense coils under influence of a first alternating magnetic field oscillating at two frequencies and a second alternating magnetic field oscillating at at least one frequency,”)
detecting the first voltage signal in a signal detection unit; detecting the second voltage signal in the signal detection unit; (Widmer 514 ¶ 0061 lines 1-4 “A basic method of sensing the magnetic field for purposes of positioning assumes that at least one of a charging base or vehicle generates an alternating magnetic field that can be sensed by a sensor system, which may be either integrated into the vehicle charging unit or built into the charging base, respectively,” and ¶ 00132 lines 1-3 “ In one system, the positioning receiver may use a bank of synchronous detectors to filter and detect each of the complex voltage components of each transmitted tone as received by each sense coil,”)
converting, via an evaluation unit, the first voltage signal into a first digital signal and the second voltage signal into a second digital signals; (Widmer 514 ¶ 00174 “The AFE 2100 may provide the digital signals v.sub.x(t), v.sub.y(t), and v.sub.z(t) at its three outputs that may represent the three input signals of the synchronous detector sub- banks as shown in FIG. 19. Each of the three AFE channels comprises […] an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter 2110,”)
processing and comparing the first digital signal and the second digital signal via the evaluation unit, the processing of the first digital signal and the second digital signal including transforming the first digital signal and the second digital signal into a frequency domain (Widmer 514 ¶ 00170 lines 27-33 “Similarly, the processor (e.g., the phase synchronization unit 1904) may be configured to establish relative phase synchronization in the frequency domain between the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion of the respective signal generated by each of the plurality of sense coils 612, 614, 616 by shifting a phase angle of at least one of the first portion, the second portion and the third portion by an angle corresponding to the relative phase angle Αφ or an integer multiple of the relative phase angle Αφ.,”)
and calculating, from the comparison of the first digital signal and the second digital signal, a directional deviation value between the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a connecting line extending between the stationary inductive charging device and the mobile inductive charging device. (Widmer 514 ¶ 00191 “Block 2504 includes determining the relative position of the wireless power transmitter from the wireless power receiver based on the respective voltage signal generated by each of the plurality of sense coils. For example, as previously described in connection with at least FIGs. 4-24 a processor or controller downstream from and/or including the phase synchronization unit 1904 (see FIG. 19) may determine the relative position of the wireless power transmitter from the wireless power receiver based on the respective voltage signal generated at the output terminals of each of the plurality of sense coils 612, 614, 616,” the relative position being directly analogous to a directional deviation)
Widmer 514 does not teach:
[…] and at a second angle of 35° to 55° in relation to at least one of a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a target vehicle longitudinal direction, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Kilic teaches:
[…] and at a second angle of 35° to 55° in relation to at least one of a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a target vehicle longitudinal direction, […] (Kilic Pg 5 ¶ 2 “the double-winding system may be arranged substantially in the region of the center axis of the vehicle on the underside thereof, and a diagonal of the double-winding system may be congruent with the longitudinal extent of the vehicle with this. In this design of the double-winding system, in particular with a square ferrite element, the windings are each offset by 45 ° relative to the central axis of the vehicle in one direction, whereby noise of the induced voltages in the double winding system is substantially reduced, and thus an optimal determination of the positional deviation is passive coil relative to the primary coil of an inductive charging system possible,” as shown in Fig. 3 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
377
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Widmer 514 and Kilic are considered analogous because they both relate to sensing alignment of inductive charging systems in vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orthogonal sensing coils of Widmer 514 with the 45-degree positioning of the sensing coils relative to the central axis of the vehicle of Kilic. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by significantly reducing noise in the induced voltages in the double winding system to obtain an optimal determination of positional deviation (Kilic Pg 5 ¶ 2 lines 4-7).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
further comprising generating the positioning signal in at least one of the stationary inductive charging device and the mobile inductive charging device. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0061 lines 1-15 “A basic method of sensing the magnetic field for purposes of positioning assumes that at least one of a charging base or vehicle generates an alternating magnetic field that can be sensed by a sensor system, which may be either integrated into the vehicle charging unit or built into the charging base, respectively. […] In addition, in some implementations, the sense magnetic field may be generated using the same coil or the same coil arrangement that is used for IPT (e.g., the transmit coupler 274 of FIG. 2 or the transmit coupler 352 of FIG. 3),” teaching the inductive charging device being used to generate the positioning signal)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein the transformation of the first digital signal and the second digital signal into the frequency domain is realized via a discrete Fourier transform. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0068 lines 3-5 “In the receiver, these tones and tones emanating from other positioning transmitters may be separated using Fast Fourier Transform Techniques,” teaching separating multiple frequency signals using Fast Fourier Transforms)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
further comprising filtering at least one of the first digital signal and the second digital signal transformed into the frequency domain with a filter having a bandwidth around an excitation frequency of the positioning signal. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0050 lines 1-3 “The filter and matching circuit 226 filters out harmonics or other unwanted frequencies and matches the impedance of the transmit circuitry 206 to the transmit coupler 214,” teaching filtering out unwanted frequencies, and ¶ 0053 “The resonant frequency of the loop or magnetic couplers is based on the inductance and capacitance of the loop or magnetic coupler. […] For transmit couplers, the signal 358, oscillating at a frequency that substantially corresponds to the resonant frequency of the coupler 352, may be an input to the coupler 352. In some implementations, the frequency for inductive power transfer may be in the range of 20 kHz to 150 kHz,” teaching desired frequencies of 20 kHz to 150 kHz, analogous to the desired excitation frequencies described in the present specification ¶ 0045 of 10 kHz to 150 kHz, which are filtered around according to Widmer 514 ¶ 0050)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
the first voltage signal is directly a first voltage dropping across the first sensor winding, and the second voltage signal is directly a second voltage dropping across the second sensor winding. (Widmer 514 ¶ 00132 lines 1-3 “In one system, the positioning receiver may use a bank of synchronous detectors to filter and detect each of the complex voltage components of each transmitted tone as received by each sense coil,”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein the signal detection unit includes: a first oscillating circuit including the first sensor winding and a first capacitance; and a second oscillating circuit including the second sensor winding and a second capacitance. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0053 lines 1-8 “The resonant frequency of the loop or magnetic couplers is based on the inductance and capacitance of the loop or magnetic coupler. Inductance may be simply the inductance created by the coupler 352, whereas, capacitance may be added via a capacitor (or the self-capacitance of the coupler 352) to create a resonant structure at a desired resonant frequency, or at a fixed frequency set or prescribed by a particular operations standard. As a non-limiting example, a capacitor 354 and a capacitor 356 may be added to the transmit or receive circuitry 350 to create a resonant circuit that selects a signal 358 at a resonant frequency,” teaching that each loop may be tuned to a resonant frequency with a capacitor)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
displaying at least one of the directional deviation value, an averaged directional deviation value, a first value derived from the directional deviation value, and a second value derived from the averaged directional deviation value on a direction indicator disposed in the vehicle. (Widmer 514 ¶ 00109 lines 1-12 “FIG. 15 illustrates vector polarity ambiguity in a system 1500 using a 2-axis generator and only relative phase synchronization, in accordance with some implementations. In FIG. 15 vector polarity is ambiguous, as indicated by the double- arrows in opposite directions. Using this representation, it becomes evident that one vector pair matches another vector pair at the antipodal point when rotated by ψ' = 180°. […] In some applications of vehicle positioning there may be no need for resolving this bi-ambiguity. This may be true for systems that, for purposes of guidance and alignment, displays the position of the charging spot as seen from the vehicle, e.g., on a dashboard display,” teaching the use of the calculated vector (directional deviation value) being used to display position on a dashboard display)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
at least one of the mobile inductive charging device and the stationary inductive charging device includes at least one flux guiding element; the at least one flux guiding element is configured to guide a magnetic field during an energy transmission between a first energy transmission winding of the mobile inductive charging device and a second energy transmission winding of the stationary inductive charging device; and the first sensor winding and the second sensor winding are arranged around the at least one flux guiding element. (Widmer 514 ¶ 00179 “FIG. 22 illustrates an orthogonal coil arrangement 2200 for a 3-axis generator or sensor, in accordance with some implementations. It uses three orthogonal coils 602, 604, 606. Typically, the coils 602, 604, 606 may have a few turns of relatively thin copper wire […] wound around a ferrite structure 2202. […] In a preferred implementation, the ferrite structure 2202 is shared by the IPT and MV systems. This allows for a large volume of the ferrite structure 2202 to capture larger amounts of magnetic flux and, thus, provide a more accurate indication of the alignment between the generator and sensor,”)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein the first radial longitudinal direction and the second radial longitudinal direction intersect in a region of an area spanned by at least one of the first energy transmission winding and the second energy transmission winding. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0069 lines 4-7 “FIGs. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D assume a magnetic vectoring (MV) field generator and a MV field sensor are integrated with the IPT couplers in the base pad 402 and the vehicle pad 404 of a vehicle 406 in positions such that the magnetic centers of the respective IPT coupler and of the MV generator coincide,” teaching that the magnetic vectoring sense coils and transmission IPT coils have coinciding centers, placing the MV intersections within the span of the IPT coils)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 13 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein the first radial longitudinal direction and the second radial longitudinal direction intersect at least approximately in at least one of a center of the first energy transmission winding and a center of the second energy transmission winding. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0069 lines 4-7 “FIGs. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D assume a magnetic vectoring (MV) field generator and a MV field sensor are integrated with the IPT couplers in the base pad 402 and the vehicle pad 404 of a vehicle 406 in positions such that the magnetic centers of the respective IPT coupler and of the MV generator coincide.,” teaching that the magnetic vectoring sense coils and transmission IPT coils have coinciding centers, “coinciding” being within “a few centimeters” as described of “at least approximately in […] a center” in ¶ 0078-0079 of the present specification)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 12 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein the first radial longitudinal direction and the second radial longitudinal direction extend at least approximately parallel to a main direction of a plurality of magnetic field lines present during the energy transmission in the at least one flux guiding element in a region covered by at least one of the first sensor winding and the second sensor winding. (Widmer 514 ¶ 00179 “FIG. 22 illustrates an orthogonal coil arrangement 2200 for a 3-axis generator or sensor, in accordance with some implementations. It uses three orthogonal coils 602, 604, 606. Typically, the coils 602, 604, 606 may have a few turns of relatively thin copper wire […] wound around a ferrite structure 2202. […] In a preferred implementation, the ferrite structure 2202 is shared by the IPT and MV systems. This allows for a large volume of the ferrite structure 2202 to capture larger amounts of magnetic flux and, thus, provide a more accurate indication of the alignment between the generator and sensor,” the magnetic fields shown in as shown in Fig. 14)
PNG
media_image3.png
666
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 2 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
at least one of the stationary inductive charging device and the mobile inductive charging device includes at least two windings; a first winding of the at least two windings is an energy transmission winding, and a second winding of the at least two windings is a positioning signal winding. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0069 lines 4-7 “FIGs. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D assume a magnetic vectoring (MV) field generator and a MV field sensor are integrated with the IPT couplers in the base pad 402 and the vehicle pad 404 of a vehicle 406 in positions such that the magnetic centers of the respective IPT coupler and of the MV generator coincide,” and ¶ 00181 lines 1-2 “In other implementations, a multi-axis generator or sensor uses a combination of at least one IPT coil and at least one magnetic vectoring coil,” teaching that the IPT and MV coils coincide, in combination, representing two windings)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 16 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
the positioning signal winding is a solenoid (Widmer 514 ¶ 00181 lines 1-3 “In other implementations, a multi-axis generator or sensor uses a combination of at least one IPT coil and at least one magnetic vectoring coil. In some implementations, the x'-coil 602 is formed by […] a "Solenoid"- coil,”)
with a winding axis extending in at least one of the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and the target vehicle longitudinal directions; at least one of the stationary inductive charging device and the mobile inductive charging device includes at least one flux guiding element configured to guide a magnetic field during an energy transmission process between a further inductive charging device and the energy transmission winding; and the positioning signal winding encloses the at least one flux guiding element. (Widmer 514 ¶ 00179 and Fig. 22 as previously shown)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein: the first angle is 90°; […] (Widmer 514 ¶ 00179 lines 1-2 “FIG. 22 illustrates an orthogonal coil arrangement 2200 for a 3-axis generator or sensor, in accordance with some implementations. It uses three orthogonal coils”)
Widmer 514 does not teach:
[…] and the second angle is 45°.
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Kilic teaches:
[…] and the second angle is 45°. (Kilic Pg 5 ¶ 2 “the double-winding system may be arranged substantially in the region of the center axis of the vehicle on the underside thereof, and a diagonal of the double-winding system may be congruent with the longitudinal extent of the vehicle with this. In this design of the double-winding system, in particular with a square ferrite element, the windings are each offset by 45 ° relative to the central axis of the vehicle in one direction, whereby noise of the induced voltages in the double winding system is substantially reduced, and thus an optimal determination of the positional deviation is passive coil relative to the primary coil of an inductive charging system possible,”)
Widmer 514 and Kilic are considered analogous because they both relate to sensing alignment of inductive charging systems in vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orthogonal sensing coils of Widmer 514 with the 45-degree positioning of the sensing coils relative to the central axis of the vehicle of Kilic. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by significantly reducing noise in the induced voltages in the double winding system to obtain an optimal determination of positional deviation (Kilic Pg 5 ¶ 2 lines 4-7).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 3 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
wherein the discrete Fourier transform is a fast Fourier transform. (Widmer 514 ¶ 0068 lines 3-5 “In the receiver, these tones and tones emanating from other positioning transmitters may be separated using Fast Fourier Transform Techniques,” teaching separating multiple frequency signals using Fast Fourier Transforms)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer 514 in view of Kilic and further in view of Widmer et al et al (US 20170005523, hereinafter “Widmer 523,”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 7 as described above. Widmer 514 does not teach:
the first oscillating circuit further includes a first damping resistor; and the second oscillating circuit further includes a second damping resistor.
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Widmer 523 teaches:
the first oscillating circuit further includes a first damping resistor; and the second oscillating circuit further includes a second damping resistor. (Widmer 523 ¶ 0152 “To make inductive coupling more effective and to ensure that the coil L1x′ becomes the predominant generator of the x′-magnetic field, tuned IPT circuit 1 2008 is retuned to resonate at a magnetic positioning frequency, e.g., at the center frequency of the magnetic positioning frequency band, when magnetic positioning is active. Assuming that magnetic positioning operates at frequencies higher than IPT frequencies, this may be accomplished by switching the inductance L12 and the resistance R1, connected in parallel to L1x′ and C11, when magnetic positioning is active. The switch S14 is closed and Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14 are in open-state when magnetic positioning is active. Connecting an inductance L12 in parallel increases the resonant frequency of the tuned IPT circuit 1 2008, while the resistance R1 in parallel dampens resonance (lowers Q-factor). Such a dampened resonance may be required to artificially broaden the bandwidth of the circuit,”)
Widmer 514 and Widmer 523 are considered analogous because they both relate to sensing alignment of inductive charging systems in vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IPT and MV circuits of Widmer 514 with the simple addition of the switched damping resistors of Widmer 523. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the ability to artificially broaden the bandwidth to tune the circuit (Widmer 523 ¶ 0152).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer 514 in view of Kilic and further in view of Widmer et al (US 20170328740, hereinafter “Widmer 740,”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 6 as described above. Widmer 514 does not teach:
wherein the signal detection unit includes at least one of a potential-free current measurement and a shunt measurement.
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Widmer 740 teaches:
wherein the signal detection unit includes at least one of a potential-free current measurement and a shunt measurement. (Widmer 740 ¶ 0266 “In this case, each sense loop 2522e1 and 2522e1 are parallel tuned using resonance capacitors 2525e1 and 2525e2, respectively. The sense loop 2522e1 and resonance capacitor 2525e1 substantially determine the resonance frequency. A coupling capacitor 2527e common to all sense loops 2522e1 and 2522e2 is coupled in series with resonance capacitors 2525e1 and 2525e2. In one aspect, the coupling capacitor 2527e is the “larger” capacitor while each of the resonance capacitors 2525d1 and 2525d2 are the “smaller” capacitors. It is noted that with reference to FIG. 14A, a coupling circuit 1426A may include the coupling capacitor 2527e while each sense circuit may include the parallel tuned sense loop 2522e1 with resonance capacitor 2525e1,” emphasis added, teaching the use of parallel sense loops, directly analogous to shunt sense loops or shunt measurements, in resonant sensing circuits)
Widmer 514 and Widmer 740 are considered analogous because they both relate to magnetic resonance sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MV sensing circuits of Widmer 514 with the simple addition of Widmer 740’s parallel sense loops in its resonant sensing circuitry. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements (Widmer 514’s MV sensing circuit and Widmer 740’s sensing loop) according to known methods (Widmer 740’s parallel tuned sensing) to yield predictable results (sensing of resonant magnetic fields).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer 514 in view of Kilic and further in view of Lee et al (WO 2013042988, hereinafter “Lee,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
transferring at least one of the directional deviation value, an averaged directional deviation value, a first value derived from the directional deviation value, and a second value derived from the averaged directional deviation value, […] (Widmer 514 ¶ 0053 lines 1-12 “FIG. 15 illustrates vector polarity ambiguity in a system 1500 using a 2-axis generator and only relative phase synchronization, in accordance with some implementations. In FIG. 15 vector polarity is ambiguous, as indicated by the double- arrows in opposite directions. Using this representation, it becomes evident that one vector pair matches another vector pair at the antipodal point when rotated by ψ' = 180°. […] In some applications of vehicle positioning there may be no need for resolving this bi-ambiguity. This may be true for systems that, for purposes of guidance and alignment, displays the position of the charging spot as seen from the vehicle, e.g., on a dashboard display,” teaching the use of the calculated vector (directional deviation value) being used to display position on a dashboard display)
Widmer 514 does not teach:
[…] via a data interface, to a bus system.
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Lee teaches:
[…] via a data interface, to a bus system. (Lee Pg x ¶ 0266 “The display unit 160 may be connected to the control unit 150 through a data bus to transmit information in both directions,” teaching the use of a data bus to transmit information in a vehicle charging system)
Widmer 514 and Lee are considered analogous because they both relate to vehicle charging systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmittal of directional vector data to a dashboard display of Widmer 514 with the simple addition of Lee’s use of a data bus to transmit information in both directions between a control unit and a display unit, analogously applicable between the sensing unit and display of Widmer 514. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements (Widmer 514’s dashboard display and sensing unit combined with Lee’s transmittal of information over a data bus) according to known methods (Lee’s use of a data bus) to yield predictable results (transmittal of directional information to a display).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer 514 in view of Kilic and further in view of Sawa et al (WO 2021201147, hereinafter “Sawa,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Widmer 514 further teaches:
further comprising determining an averaged […] (Widmer 514 ¶ 00157 lines 1-4 “To further improve synchronization accuracy or increase robustness against noise and interference, estimation of the relative phasor may be further enhanced by using averaging techniques over consecutively detected output phasors (time sequences),” teaching averaging in phasor estimation which is contributes to the output relative positioning)
Widmer 514 does not teach:
[…] directional deviation value via forming an average from a plurality of directional deviation values.
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Sawa teaches:
[…] determining an averaged directional deviation value via forming an average from a plurality of directional deviation values. (Sawa Pg 75 ¶ 1 lines 11-13 “In order to reduce the influence of noise, the moving average of the moving body position and posture data may be obtained,” a moving average body position and data being analogous to a series of directional deviation values from a plurality of values)
Widmer 514 and Sawa are considered analogous because they both relate to wireless transmission alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the directional vector data of Widmer 514 with the simple addition of Sawa’s moving average of the analogous position and posture data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by reducing the influence of noise (Sawa Pg 75 ¶ 1 lines 11-13).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Widmer 514 and Kilic teaches the elements of Claim 5 as described above. Widmer 514 does not teach:
wherein the plurality of directional deviation values includes at least 10 directional deviation values determined at discrete, successive points in time.
Within the same field of endeavor as Widmer 514, Sawa teaches:
wherein the plurality of directional deviation values includes at least 10 directional deviation values determined at discrete, successive points in time. (Sawa Pg 75 ¶ 1 lines 11-13 “In order to reduce the influence of noise, the moving average of the moving body position and posture data may be obtained,” a moving average body position and data being analogous to a series of directional deviation values at a particular number of discrete, successive points in time)
Widmer 514 and Sawa are considered analogous because they both relate to wireless transmission alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the directional vector data of Widmer 514 with the simple addition of Sawa’s moving average of the analogous position and posture data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by reducing the influence of noise (Sawa Pg 75 ¶ 1 lines 11-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664