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 .
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: “a travel route setting unit configured to” in Claim 1; “a charging planning unit configured to” in Claim 4; “a notification unit configured to” in Claim 5; and “a control determination unit configured to” in Claim 6. Support for the functional language is found in Applicant’s specification page 9 as filed.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et. al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0226937) in view of Kim (US Patent Publication 2020/0009982)
Regarding claim 1, Hanson discloses a vehicle control device for an in-motion power transfer system that wirelessly powers a vehicle during travel, (¶7; “a vehicle powered at least partly by an electrical storage battery comprises an inductive charge receiver configured to inductively couple to a series of charging coils embedded in a roadway over which the vehicle travels”)
the in-motion power transfer system being equipped with power transmitting coils installed to a road and a power receiving coil installed to the vehicle, (Fig 2; ¶19-20; “a roadway 10 has embedded beneath is upper surface a series of charging coils 11, interconnecting cables 12, and support circuitry 13” “an electric vehicle 20 having an electrical storage battery 21 which can be inductively charged via an inductive charge receiver 22”)
the vehicle control device comprising: a travel route setting unit configured to use a performs object/pattern recognition to find features delineating charging coils 24 and/or cables 28 in order to A) map locations of the series of charging coils 24 relative to vehicle 20, B) identify a configuration, type, or capacities of charging coils 24, and/or, C) identify damage to the charging coils and embedded cabling. Based on the mapped locations of charging coils 24, control circuit 27 then determines a steering operation for vehicle 20 along roadway 23 for optimizing a charge transfer from charging coils 24A-24D to inductive charge receiver 22.”)
the travel route setting unit being configured to set the travel route of the vehicle so that the vehicle is in a powerable state where the power receiving coil faces any one of the power transmitting coils when the vehicle travels in a powerable section, which is a section of the road where the power transmitting coils are embedded. (¶25; “provides the mapping of the upcoming charging coils to a path control block 42. A steering operation to be performed by the vehicle along the roadway is computed by path control block 42 such that the vehicle will follow a trajectory over the embedded charging coils which places the onboard inductive charge receiving coils in a preferred relationship with the embedded charge transmitting coils in order to optimize a charge transfer”)
Hanson discloses a path controller that uses a real-time radar to map locations of induction coils but appears to be silent as to HD maps.
Kim however teaches a vehicle path controller that uses HD maps. (¶200; “The processor 170 can receive HD map data from the communication device 220. The processor 170 can receive vehicle state data from the sensing unit 270. The processor 170 can receive position data from the position data generation device 280.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Hanson with HD maps as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success so as to reduce the required complexity of the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the radar generated map data of Hanson could be stored in an HD map and used by vehicles not equipped with radar, thus reducing the required complexity.
Regarding claim 2, Hanson further discloses wherein the travel route setting unit is configured to determine, based on an amount of received power, which is an amount of power received by the vehicle in the in-motion power transfer system, whether the vehicle is in the powerable state, and in response to determining that the vehicle is not in the powerable state, change the travel route by shifting a travel position of the vehicle in the lateral direction by a predefined amount. (¶27; “to obtain information on the current charging performance as the vehicle interacts with the embedded charging coils. Based on various factors such as (i) a characterization of the embedded coils in the series, (ii) the charging rate that is already being achieved with the coil series, and (iii) the current state of charge of the onboard storage battery, block 45 predicts a charge transfer rate that will be obtained” “known to monitor the coupling factors for several laterally-spaced receiver coils mounted on a vehicle and to adjust the travel path of the vehicle based on differences between the coupling factors”)
Regarding claim 4, Hanson further discloses a charging planning unit configured to acquire information about the powerable section and use the acquired information about the powerable section to devise a charging plan during travel of the vehicle, wherein the travel route setting unit is configured to set the travel route of the vehicle using the charging plan devised by the charging planning unit. (¶17, 27)
Regarding claim 5, Hanson further discloses a notification unit configured to provide a notification via a notification device of guidance information to the travel route set by the travel route setting unit. (¶13, 25)
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches wherein the travel route setting unit is configured to set the travel route with respect to lane link information included in the HD map. (¶210; “The HD map data may include detailed topology information in units of lanes of roads, connection inforn1ation of each lane, and feature information for vehicle localization ( e.g., traffic signs, lane marking/attribute, road furniture, etc.). The HD map data may be based on data received from an external server through the communication device 220”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Hanson with wherein the travel route setting unit is configured to set the travel route with respect to lane link information included in the HD map as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because detailed lane level data is required in Hanson and so as to reduce the required complexity of the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the radar generated map data of Hanson could be stored in an HD map and used by vehicles not equipped with radar, thus reducing the required complexity.
Regarding claim 8, Hanson further discloses wherein the vehicle is capable of both autonomous driving and manual driving along the travel route set by the travel route setting unit. (¶13, 25)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious 3. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the travel route setting unit is configured to sequentially set, in the powerable section, a plurality of travel routes at different travel positions in the lateral direction, sequentially measure a plurality of amounts of received power from the in-motion power transfer system during travel along respective ones the plurality of travel routes, and set, as the travel route to travel in a remaining portion of the powerable section, the travel position in the lateral direction corresponding to a maximum amount of received power among the plurality of measured amounts of received power.
or
6. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, further comprising a control determination unit configured to determine controls for driving the vehicle, wherein the control determination unit is configured to, when another vehicle is traveling in an adjacent lane to a lane in which the vehicle is traveling in the powerable state, determine the controls by changing a longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the other vehicle so as to cause the vehicle to move away from the other vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights