CTFR 18/952,322 CTFR 89875 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant’s response of 4/8/2026 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 4-8 were previously withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-8 remain pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not focus on “coil placement relative to preset guide lines for driving” (Remarks, pg.5)- nowhere in claim 1 is there any recitation of plural guide lines and “preset” guide lines. That is, nothing in the claim requires the guide line to be preset in advance, predetermined, or a previously stored route constraint for coil placement. The language as currently presented encompasses many implementations beyond a preset guideline. In addition, the claim does not define the guide line- it could include a lane center line, navigation path, or a dynamically generated trajectory, etc. The last wherein clause is narrative language that describes vehicle functionality- it does not require that the guide line is set by the travel route setting section and does not tie in the coil placement to the set travel route. Lastly, examiner notes that “ based on the guide line” is broad language that only requires a broad undefined relationship to exist. See below for further analysis of the claims. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “a travel route setting section that sets a travel route…” in claim 1. 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 Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “…wherein the vehicle comprises a travel route setting section…” The travel route setting section is not of the vehicle per se, it is part of a vehicle control unit. Furthermore, the last wherein clause is narrative language descriptive of the vehicle and does not further positively narrow the claim by introducing any new structure. Applicant should amend the claim to positively recite a vehicle control unit by giving it its own paragraph and that the vehicle control unit includes a travel route setting section . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites “…sets a travel route using an HD map …” The claim does not provide sufficient context regarding the structure, content, or characteristics of the “HD map” for the reader to know what is intended by “HD map”. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to further define what is intended by “HD map”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1-2 recite “HD” map which is an acronym for high-definition. The claims should reflect this. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (2023/0226937 A1) in view of Kim (2020/0009982 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Hanson (figs.1-3) teaches an in-motion power supply system comprising a power transmission device (see for e.g., figs.1-2, pars [19-20] and related discussion) and a vehicle (item 20), wherein the power transmission device is configured to supply power to the vehicle in motion in a wireless manner (pars [7, 19-20] and related discussion), the power transmission device comprises: a power transmission coil (power transmission coil read on by at least a charging coil 24n, par [20]) that is: disposed on a guide line of a road (figs.1-3, pars [20, 22, 25]; Hanson’s embedded charging coils define a roadway travel path. Hanson teaches mapping the locations of the charging coils and computing a “trajectory”/pathway over these coils. The vehicle follows that trajectory/pathway-therefore, the mapped coil path/trajectory functions as a “guide line” and the charging coil(s) is disposed on that guide line), and configured to supply power to a power reception coil (fig.2, item 22, pars [19-20]; roadway 10 has a series of embedded charging coils 11 and vehicle 20 having an electrical storage battery 21 which can be inductively charged via an inductive charge receiver 22, that includes “receiving coil”) of the vehicle (20) in a wireless manner when the vehicle travels along the guide line (pars [19-20, 22, 25]; power is supplied to the receiving coil when the vehicle travels along the trajectory/mapped coil path/guide line), and a power transmission circuit (figs.1-2, “Supply”, 28, 30, etc., pars [19-20]) is configured to supply power to the power transmission coil (pars [19-20]; power is supplied from the “Supply”, 30, 28 to the charging coil(s)), wherein the vehicle comprises a travel route setting section (figs.1-3, 27, pars [22, 25]; travel route setting section read on by item 27 that maps the location of the series charging coils, computes and sets a steered trajectory over the charging coils for the vehicle to follow-this reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “travel route setting section”) that sets a travel route using a map (pars [22, 25]; sets a steered trajectory using “map locations of the series charging coils 24”… “Based on the mapped location of charging coils 24”, “mapping of the upcoming charging coils…”), and the travel route is set based on the guide line (pars [22, 25]; Hanson teaches a guide line because the embedded charging coils define a roadway travel path/ “trajectory” that the vehicle follows. Hanson maps locations of the charging coils and computes a “trajectory”/pathway over the coils for the vehicle to follow. The mapped coil path/trajectory therefore corresponds to the guide line, and the vehicle travel route/steered trajectory is set “based on” that guide line). Hanson teaches a controller that maps locations of the power transmission coils. Hanson does not explicitly disclose an HD map. Kim, however, teaches a controller that uses an HD map (pars [200, 202] and related discussion; “The processor 170 can receive HD map data from the communication device 220”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Hanson’s invention with an HD map as taught within Kim because one skilled in the art would have recognized that the map data of Hanson could be stored in an HD map and used by vehicles as is well-known and well-desired in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (2023/0226937 A1) in view of Kim (2020/0009982 A1) in further view of Hagaribommanahalli et al . (2022/0379910 A1) . Regarding Claim 2, The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose the guide line is represented as static information in the HD map. Hagaribommanahalli, however, teaches it is known in the art for a guide line (par [24]; i.e., corresponding to the “driveline”) to be represented as static information in the HD map (par [24]; Hagaribommanahalli teaches the HD map includes driveline data and thus the driveline is disclosed as part of the HD map data, i.e., static map information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of modified Hanson to that of Hagaribommanahalli. The motivation would have been to provide a stable and reliable line for vehicle guidance. Regarding Claim 3, The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 2 and further teaches wherein the power transmission coil is one of a plurality of power transmission coils that are disposed on the road along the guide line (Hanson, figs.1-2, pars [19-20, 22, 25] and related discussion; for e.g., transmission coil 24A is one of a plurality of power transmission coils 24A-24D disposed on the road along the guide line/mapped coil path/trajectory). Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6. 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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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. /RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 /REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 2 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 3 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 4 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 5 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 6 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 7 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 8 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/952,322 Page 9 Art Unit: 2836
Prosecution Insights