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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 & 11/3/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) is/are:
Power transmission characteristic acquisition unit (claims 1, 3, 4)
Power reception characteristic acquisition unit (claims 1, 3, 4)
Abnormality detection means (claims 1, 3, 4)
Notification device (claims 3, 4)
With the exception of the notification device, the above limitations are interpreted to be provided upon at least a CPU ([0027]). The notification device lacks a description in the specification and will be interpreted as any device capable of sending a signal indicating an abnormality.
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.
Claims 3, 4 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 4 recites the limitation “a vehicle” in two instances. It is unclear if these instances are the same or different. For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being the same.
As per claims 3 and 4, the limitation of “notification device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). In particular the specification states “a notification device that notifies an abnormality detection means of the contactless power feeding system of the measured power reception characteristic” ([0008]).
Claims 3, 4 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 are directed to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The examiner has identified product claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to product claims 2-4.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “power feeding system…measures a power transmission characteristic…measures a power reception characteristic…calculates efficiency…determines abnormality…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have
been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of: acquisition unit(s) are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional element of a vehicle is just a generic device. Invocation of generic devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the additional limitation of notifying via a notification device is considered extra solution activity such as transmitting/displaying data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Controlling the feed power based on abnormality/efficiency as described in the specification [0027] would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
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) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140285029A1 Ichikawa et al ("Ichikawa") in view of CN114268173A Mao ("Mao", English machine translation provided).
As per claims 1 and 2, Ichikawa teaches the limitations of the system and non-transitory computer readable recording medium:
a power transmission characteristic acquisition unit that is provided on a side of the power supply segment and measures a power transmission characteristic of the power supply segment; a power reception characteristic acquisition unit that is provided on a side of the vehicle and measures a power reception characteristic of the vehicle; and an abnormality detection means that matches a measurement period of the power transmission characteristic of the power supply segment measured by the power transmission characteristic acquisition unit with a measurement period of the power reception characteristic of the vehicle measured by the power reception characteristic acquisition unit, calculates efficiency of the power supply segment using the power transmission characteristic of the power supply segment and the power reception characteristic of the vehicle, the measurement periods of which are matched, and determines abnormality of the power supply segment on a basis of the calculated efficiency. (Ichikawa at least the abstract, FIG. 6, [0019-0020]: “Preferably, the electric power reception portion is configured such that a difference in natural frequency from the electric power transmission portion is within ±10%.”, [0028]: “Preferably, the electric power transmission portion is configured to have peaks at which transmission efficiency is higher than transmission efficiency at the power supply frequency at least two locations… a central axis of the electric power reception portion and a central axis of the electric power transmission portion matching with each other.”)
Ichikawa does not disclose the contactless power feeding system supplying power from a power supply segment provided on a traveling path of a vehicle to a traveling vehicle. Mao teaches the aforementioned limitation (Mao at least the abstract: “The system comprises a ground power supply coil, a vehicle-mounted receiving coil, a voltage-stabilizing chopper and an external power supply, wherein the ground power supply coil is uniformly arranged between rails on two sides along the rail direction, the vehicle-mounted coil is arranged at the bottom of a train, the voltage-stabilizing chopper is arranged on the train and connected with the vehicle-mounted coil… the electric energy can be transmitted to the vehicle from the ground in the static state of the vehicle, and when the vehicle runs, the power supply coil is cut along with the receiving coil, so that more stable electric energy supply can be realized; the relation between the induction voltage and the phase between the receiving coil and the power supply coil is utilized in the running process of the vehicle, so that the sensing of speed, direction and position can be realized, and the speed measurement and positioning of the vehicle can be completed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ichikawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide stable power to a moving vehicle (Mao abstract).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Mao, in further view of US20230347759A1 Maekawa ("Maekawa").
As per claims 3 and 4, Ichikawa in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above for claims 1 and 2. Ichikawa does not disclose a notification device that notifies an abnormality detection of the power feeding system. Maekawa teaches the aforementioned limitation (Maekawa at least FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ichikawa with the aforementioned limitations taught by Maekawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to notify a driver of a misalignment (Maekawa [0054]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR2947113A1, JP2020178437A both teach matching frequencies of transmitter and receivers of non-contact power supplies for vehicles to improve efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669