DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of election of Species A corresponding to claims 1, 3-22 for prosecution on merits filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Non-elected claims 23-30 are cancelled and claim 2 is also cancelled. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2026.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3-22 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 3-9 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida ( USP 2012/0299373) in view of Gupta eta l. (USP 2023/0048774). As Per Claim 1, Yoshida discloses, a system( via a power transmitting and receiving device 12a installed to an own vehicle 11a and a power transmitting and receiving device 12b installed to one other vehicle 11b) for wirelessly transferring power from a power source onboard a transmitter vehicle to a battery onboard a receiver vehicle while the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle are moving along a direction of motion along a roadway, (Abstract, [0038-0041]),
the system comprising: a power transmitter onboard the transmitter vehicle and electrically coupled with the power source, the power transmitter comprising a transmitter coil configured to wirelessly transmit power along a direction that is transverse to or aligned with the direction of motion; and a power receiver onboard the receiver vehicle and electrically coupled with the battery, the power receiver comprising a receiver coil configured to wirelessly receive power transmitted by the transmitter coil while the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle are moving along the direction of motion along the roadway ( [0091], Fig.12) and when (i) the transmitter coil is spaced apart from the receiver coil within a charging range and (ii) a footprint of the transmitter coil overlaps with a footprint of the receiver coil; and a processor communicatively coupled to the power transmitter, a controller module of the transmitter vehicle, and a controller module of the receiver vehicle, wherein the processor is [14a, 14b, Fig.2)
configured to: obtain the charging range, the footprint of the transmitter coil, the footprint of the receiver coil,( vai electromagnetic wave , [0065], [0068], [0144], [0204]), an inter-vehicle distance separating at least a portion of the transmitter vehicle from at least a portion of the receiver vehicle, ([0009]), and in response to receiving a notification from the controller module of the receiver vehicle that the battery requests a charge, instruct the controller module of the transmitter vehicle to adjust the inter-vehicle distance and the relative velocity to cause the transmitter coil to be within the charging range and to cause the footprint of the transmitter coil to overlap the footprint of the receiver coil, and cause the power transmitter to operate in a power transfer mode while the transmitter coil is within the charging range and while the footprint of the transmitter coil overlaps the footprint of the receiver coil. ([0102-0116], Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 11-12,18).
However Yoshida does not explicitly teach, obtaining a relative velocity between the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle.
In a related art, Gupta et al. (Gupta) teach, a vehicle 100 being equipped with deterministic controller 110, wherein, obtaining a relative velocity of the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle ( via controller 110omputing relative velocity of the ego vehicle 100, and other vehicles 101,103 1and 105) [0048] Figs. 1A,1B, 2; also see [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yoshida and Gupta before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Yoshida, to include the teachings (deterministic controller) of Gupta and configure with the system of Yoshida in order to compute relative velocity between vehicles in order to compute minimum distance required for power transmission between vehicles and also avoid collision between the vehicles. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate power transmission between vehicles and avoid collision between the vehicles (i.e., an added feature to ensure power transmission and collision avoidance).
As per Claim 3, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein the processor is configured to cause the power transmitter to terminate operation of the power transfer mode after receiving a notification from the controller module of the receiver vehicle that the battery is fully charged. ((Yoshida: [0114], [0117], [0118], [0181], [0187]).
As per Claim 4, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein the processor is configured to generate instructions for the controller module of the transmitter vehicle. ((Yoshida: [0102-0106]).
As per Claim 5, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach, wherein the charging range is less than four feet.
However, maintaining a charging range within less than four feet, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 6, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach, wherein the charging range is less than two feet.
However, maintaining a charging range within less than two feet, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 7, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein the processor is disposed onboard the transmitter vehicle. (Yoshida: via 14a in device 12(a) , Fig.2).
As per Claim 8, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches,, wherein the power source comprises one or more source batteries. (Yoshida: 41a (41b) , [0042], [0043], Fig.2).
As per Claim 9, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein the power source comprises a fuel cell (Yoshida: [0043]).
As Per Claim 14, Yoshida discloses, a method for dynamic wireless charging (via a power transmitting and receiving device 12a installed to an own vehicle 11a and a power transmitting and receiving device 12b installed to one other vehicle 11b), the method comprising: positioning a transmitter vehicle in a predetermined alignment with respect to a receiver vehicle while the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle are traversing a roadway, (Abstract, [0038-0041]), wherein the predetermined alignment includes a side-by-side configuration or a lead-and-follow configuration, and wherein the transmitter vehicle includes a transmitter coil and the receiver vehicle includes a receiver coil; transferring power from the transmitter vehicle to the receiver vehicle by generating a time- varying electrical current in the transmitter coil while the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle are traversing the roadway, ([0091], Fig.12), such that a corresponding time-varying electrical current is generated in the receiver coil by electromagnetic induction; converting the time-varying electrical current in the receiver coil into electrical energy for storage in a battery of the receiver vehicle; ( via electromagnetic wave , [0065], [0068], [0144], [0204]); and
detecting and maintaining the predetermined alignment during the transfer of power from the transmitter vehicle to the receiver vehicle while the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle are traversing the roadway, wherein the detecting and maintaining the predetermined alignment includes adjusting an inter-vehicle distance ([0009]) separating the transmitter vehicle from the receiver vehicle (See [0102-0116], Figs. 1-2, 5-6, 11-12,18).
However Yoshida does not explicitly teach, adjusting a relative velocity of the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle
In a related art, Gupta et al. (Gupta) teach, a vehicle 100 being equipped with deterministic controller 110, wherein, adjusting a relative velocity of the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle ( via controller 110omputing relative velocity of the ego vehicle 100, and other vehicles 101,103 1and 105) [0048] Figs. 1A,1B, 2; also see [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yoshida and Gupta before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Yoshida, to include the teachings (deterministic controller) of Gupta and configure with the system of Yoshida in order to compute and adjust relative velocity between vehicles in order to compute minimum distance required for power transmission between vehicles and also avoid collision between the vehicles. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to facilitate power transmission between vehicles and avoid collision between the vehicles (i.e., an added feature to ensure power transmission and collision avoidance).
As per Claim 15, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, terminating the time-varying electrical current in the transmitter coil in response to the battery of the receiver vehicle being fully charged. (Yoshida : vai 41 a(41b) [0042-0043], Fig.2).
As per Claim 16, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein detecting and maintaining the predetermined alignment includes causing a footprint of the transmitter coil to overlap a footprint of the receiver coil. (Yoshida: via electromagnetic wave , [0065], [0068], [0144], [0204]).
As per Claim 17, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein detecting and maintaining the predetermined alignment includes maintaining a predetermined lateral and longitudinal distance between the transmitter coil and the receiver coil. ((Yoshida : via “longitudinal inter-vehicle distance specifying information for specifying a distance between the vehicle and the another vehicle in front of or behind the vehicle; and lateral displacement amount specifying information for specifying an amount of lateral displacement between the vehicle and the another vehicle”, [0009]);
As per Claim 18, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein detecting and maintaining the predetermined alignment includes using global positioning system (GPS) data to track and adjust the relative positions of the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle (Yoshida : [0047]).
As per Claim 19, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein transferring power from the transmitter vehicle to the receiver vehicle includes dynamically adjusting a power output of the transmitter coil based on energy requirements of the receiver coil (Yoshida : [0102-0116]).
As per Claim 20, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, exchanging data between the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle during the transfer of power to the receiver vehicle. (Yoshida : [0102-0116]).
As per Claim 21, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, wherein detecting and maintaining the predetermined alignment is performed by an autonomous driving system of at least one of the transmitter vehicle and the receiver vehicle (Yoshida : [0009]).
As per Claim 22, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta teaches, adjusting the orientation of at least one of the transmitter coil and the receiver coil to optimize the transfer of power to the receiver vehicle. (Yoshida : [0102-0116]).
5. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida ( USP 2012/0299373) in view of Gupta eta l. (USP 2023/0048774) in view of Lacaze (USP 11,232,711).
As per Claim 10, Yoshida as modified by Gupta teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach, a convoy comprising: a plurality of the receiver vehicles; and at least one of the transmitter vehicle.
In an analogous art, Lacaze teaches, a convoy ( via a convoy of multiple autonomous vehicles, see Claim 1, Figs. 1-4) comprising: a plurality of the receiver vehicles (via follower vehicles 101); and at least one of the transmitter vehicle (via lead vehicle 100) See Figs. 1-4), See Claims 1 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yoshida, Gupta and Lacaze before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Lacaze and incorporate the systems of Yoshida in order to convoy vehicles being equipped with transmitter and receivers and transmitting the power charges from the transmitter (lead) vehicle to the receiver (follower) vehicle to facilitate battery charging of the convoy while traveling. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to charge the vehicles while traveling to facilitate smooth convoy travel operation (i.e., an added feature to avoid vehicle power shortage and operation interruption).
As per Claim 11, Yoshida as modified by Gupta and Lacaze teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta and Lacaze teaches, wherein each of the plurality of receiver vehicles comprise electric vehicles, (Lacaze : autonomous vehicle being electric vehicle); and wherein the at least one transmitter vehicle comprises an internal combustion engine. ( Yoshida : “The running information detection system 21a (21b) has unillustrated various devices (for example, “an engine control device”, [0057]) Therefore, internal combustion engine is implicit). (See claim 10 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 12, Yoshida as modified by Gupta and Lacaze teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta and Lacaze teaches, wherein the plurality of receiver vehicles and the at least one transmitter vehicle comprise autonomous vehicles (Lacaze : autonomous vehicles, see Claims 1, 9). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 13, Yoshida as modified by Gupta and Lacaze teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Yoshida in view of Gupta and Lacaze teaches, wherein the transmitter vehicle is configured to prioritize wireless charging among the plurality of receiver vehicles based on battery state of charge and mission criticality for each of the plurality of receiver vehicles (Yoshida : via 41a (41b) [0042-0043], Fig.2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights