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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed 11/12/2024. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/12/2024 and 11/06/2025.
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 are 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) is/are: various “means” in claims 1-3
Examiner notes the means in claims 4-8 are further limited to particular hardware that is capable of performing the entire function. These claims do not invoke 112(f).
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 Objection
Claims 1-8 are objected because various “and” are used to mean “or”. For example, “stop and stop” is used to mean “stop or start”. While the meaning of these terms are clear after consulting specification, the clarity of claims would be greatly improved if “or” is used whenever Applicant means a list of alternatives.
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 2-3, 5-8 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 2 is directed to “a vehicle” (see preamble) but claim also includes limitation related to a charging device and its functionality. See Fig. 1 where charging calculation unit 42 is clearly located outside vehicle 2. Therefore, it’s not clear whether those limitations are part of the scope of claim 2.
Similarly, claim 3 is a power receiving device that also includes charging device’s functionality being part of claim language. It’s also unclear over similar reason.
Claims 5-8 are rejected over dependency.
For purpose of examination, anything outside the vehicle (claim 2) or non-contact power feeding power receiving device (claim 3) would NOT be given patentable weight as they are outside the scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, the following limitations recites an abstract idea:
determining start and stop of power feeding … based on an energy balance
calculating a power feeding amount and an amount of money to be charged to the vehicle based on a determination result
Specifically, the limitations fall under mental process where a person can completely exercise judgement and simple calculation to determine the output that needs to be calculated. Examiner notes that actual transmission of electrical power is outside the scope of claim. In this case, these steps can be performed by inspecting a series of logs and rule (e.g., for calculation). Further, the claim also falls into forming a business relationship, which would fall into certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements are the computer hardware (means), power feeding device, vehicle, electrical equipment. All these are just describing the intended operating environment of the claimed invention, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination. Therefore, the additional elements are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use and would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. The analysis is still applicable in step 2B. Therefore, the additional element does not provide significantly more to an abstract idea. Claim 1 is therefore not eligible.
Claims 2-3 can be similarly analyzed as mental processes because calculation and charging device are completely outside the scope of claim. The additional elements of claim 2-3 can also be similarly analyzed as mere generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. They would arrive at the same conclusion.
Claims 4-8 merely further limit the means to particular device that are generic computer components discussed in high generality. They would also be similarly analyzed as field of use and would arrive at the same conclusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ezer (US 20210309119)
As per claim 1, Ezer discloses a non-contact power feeding system that supplies power in a non-contact manner from a power feeding device provided on a traveling path of a vehicle to the vehicle during traveling, the non-contact power feeding system comprising:
a determination means for determining start and stop of power feeding from the power feeding device to the vehicle based on an energy balance of electrical equipment included in the vehicle (see 0038 that charging session controlled by BMS 409. See also 0045 that BMS 409 generate stop charging signal when battery is full. See Fig. 4 for BMS 409 and wireless charging. See 0006 regarding charging while moving on charging lane); and
a charging calculation means for calculating a power feeding amount and an amount of money to be charged to the vehicle based on a determination result of the determination means (0046 billing related information includes total aggregating charging time power per session and rate. Examiner notes these information would be capable of calculating power feeding amount and amount of money).
As per claim 2, Ezer discloses a vehicle capable of receiving power from a non-contact power feeding system that supplies power in a non-contact manner from a power feeding device provided on a traveling path of the vehicle to the vehicle during traveling, the vehicle comprising:
a determination means for determining start and stop of power feeding from the power feeding device to the vehicle based on an energy balance of electrical equipment included in the vehicle (see 0038 that charging session controlled by BMS 409. See also 0045 that BMS 409 generate stop charging signal when battery is full. See Fig. 4 for BMS 409 and wireless charging. See 0006 regarding charging while moving on charging lane); and
a notification means for notifying a charging device of the non-contact power feeding system of a determination result of the determination means (see 0045 regarding BMS 409 signals stop charging signal; and see 0041 regarding signal exchange to ground side device (GA)), wherein
the charging device uses the determination result in a process of calculating a power feeding amount and an amount of money to be charged to the vehicle (this limitation is outside the scope).
As per claim 3, Ezer further discloses a non-contact power feeding power receiving device mounted on a vehicle capable of receiving power from a non-contact power feeding system that supplies power in a non- contact manner from a power feeding device provided on a traveling path of the vehicle to the vehicle during traveling, the non-contact power feeding power receiving device comprising:
a determination means for determining start and stop of power feeding from the power feeding device to the vehicle based on an energy balance of electrical equipment included in the vehicle (see 0038 that charging session controlled by BMS 409. See also 0045 that BMS 409 generate stop charging signal when battery is full. See Fig. 4 for BMS 409 and wireless charging. See 0006 regarding charging while moving on charging lane);
a notification means for notifying a charging device of the non-contact power feeding system of a determination result of the determination means (see 0045 regarding BMS 409 signals stop charging signal; and see 0041 regarding signal exchange to ground side device (GA)), wherein
the charging device uses the determination result in a process of calculating a power feeding amount and an amount of money to be charged to the vehicle (this limitation is outside the scope).
As per claim 4, Ezer further discloses the non-contact power feeding system according to claim 1, wherein the determination means and the charging calculation means are a central processing unit (see 0068, functions described in Fig. 4-7 can be implemented on processor).
As per claim 5, Ezer further discloses the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the determination means is a central processing unit (see 0068, functions described in Fig. 4-7 can be implemented on processor).
As per claim 7, Ezer further discloses the non-contact power feeding power receiving device according to claim 3, wherein the determination means is a central processing unit (see 0068, functions described in Fig. 4-7 can be implemented on processor).
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.
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) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ezer (US 20210309119) in view of Jung (US 20200189416)
As per claim 6, Ezer discloses the vehicle according to claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the notification means is a comparator. Ezer, however, teaches computing device being used to execute logics described (0066)
Jung teaches using a comparator in a communication device (0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Jung’s usage of a comparator with Ezer’s computing device for the purpose of executing desired logical decision.
As per claim 8, Ezer discloses the non-contact power feeding power receiving device according to 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the notification means is a comparator. Ezer, however, teaches computing device being used to execute logics described (0066)
Jung teaches using a comparator in a communication device (0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Jung’s usage of a comparator with Ezer’s computing device for the purpose of executing desired logical decision.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9184633, 8421409, 12358385, 10464432, 9365129, as well as Patent Application 18525118, 18594141, 19010447, 18883456, 18952322, in view of prior arts cited above for 102/103 rejection.
In this case, all the above cited patent or patent application claim a wireless vehicle charging system that includes vehicle, wireless charging system disposed outside of vehicle where the charging is controlled based on determining electrical status of the vehicle’s device. The main difference is in the calculation of charges, which is taught by the references cited above. It would have been obvious to include these charging calculation process with the charging system in these patents or applications so that money can be made.
Examiner notes that the current claimed scope is relatively broad and therefore, a larger than expected amount of patents or patent applications would read on the current scope. As claims are amended to more narrowly, it may no longer be obvious to combine a base wireless vehicle charging system to a further amended claim. That said, it would depend heavily on the scope of amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights