DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed January 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yu (US 2018/0006567). Yu (par 26) discloses a detection unit capable of operating an inverter in an intermittent mode or a continuous mode (par 26). In the combination, Yu’s intermittent/continuous modes would be during the periodic/cyclic times as taught by Henkel (par 10, 25-26).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because the “cyclic manner” is not clearly presented. IN claim 13, each subset of injectors has its own “cyclic manner”. The claim was correct as previously recited (and as recited in claim 1), where the “cyclic manner” refers to both injector subsets.
If the two subsets are excited cyclically, then the public would understand that the subsets alternate (1-2-1-2, etc.). But if just the first subset is cyclic, then it is unclear what it is alternating with. Then the second subset is separately cyclic – there is no prohibition against the two subsets being excited at the same time.
The deleted language of claim 13 (“the first coil subset and the second coil subset [are] excited in a cyclic manner”) is clear and should be reinserted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a detection unit [] capable of individual control of one or more injectors”. And then recites that the detection unit is configured to control two different subsets of injectors – if a subset is one or more – then the control over two subsets would mean the detection unit is capable of individual control over two or more injectors.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-12, 19, 23, 25, 29, 34 and 37-39 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10-19, 23, 25, 29, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkel (US 2018/0366985) in view of Dibben (US 2012/0175967), Kesler (US 2016/0087687) and Yu (US 2018/0006567).
With respect to claim 1, Henkel discloses a device (fig 1-2, 5-6, item 13; par 5, 15, 24-27) for foreign object detection (FOD) in a wireless power transfer system, the device comprising:
an injection unit (not shown) including an injector (obvious inverter/oscillator to create the AC power that is emitted) and circuitry (the structure that is the source of the AC signals entering into the coils of 13) configured to generate a first AC power signal (obvious that if the coils of 13 can be driven, they are done so with an AC power signal – DC power would have no effect on a coil; see also fig 2 and par 25 which indicates the energization of the coils);
an array of coils (see fig 2, the array is item 15, the individual coils are items 16.n) operatively coupled to the injection unit and designed to generate a first electromagnetic field via a coil subset of the array of coils when the coil subset is excited using the first AC power signal (this limitation does not set forth how any subset would be selected – it only states the redundant fact that a coil (or coil subset) would generate an electromagnetic field “when” that coil (or subset) is excited – Henkel discloses exciting the subset at par 15), wherein the array of coils includes a first coil subset including multiple coils and a second coil subset including multiple coils that are non-adjacent to the first coil subset (par 10, 25-26);
a mat (13) substantially enclosing at least the array of coils; and
a detection unit (not shown; see par 6-7, 10-15) operatively coupled to the array of coils and capable of individual control of the injector to operate in a continuous mode, the detection unit configured to:
individually control a first subset of the plurality of injectors coupled to the first coil subset to excite, using the first AC power signal (par 10, 25-26);
individually control a second subset of the plurality of injectors coupled to the second coil subset to excite, using the first AC power signal (par 10, 25-26);
wherein the first/second coil subsets are periodically excited in a cyclic manner (par 10, 25-26; see analysis below);
measure a parameter of the DC power signal at an input terminal of the injection unit (no) or of the first AC power signal at an output terminal of the injection unit (yes - par 7, “electrical decay behaviors are analyzed.”) of the first coil subset; and
detect a presence of a foreign object within the electromagnetic field based on a change in the parameter being greater than a threshold amount of change from a predefined value measured in the absence of the foreign object (this limitation only defines the first option for measuring – but Henkel discloses the second option).
Henkel discloses that foreign object detectors are known. This includes applying a pulsed excitation to sampling coils, measuring the resulting signal decay, and making a determination based on the measurement. This pulsed excitation is a first AC signal at an FOD frequency range.
Henkel’s foreign object detection improvement places the sensor coils in a “mat” that is physically placed on top of an existing transmitter system. Thus, the Henkel sensor coils are distinguished from any transmission primary coils. Henkel’s sensor coils (16.n) are enclosed within the mat, because they are all part of the same “device” (par 24). Henkel does not disclose that the user must move each individual coil when the monitoring device 13 is placed above the transmitter; they all move together as one “unit”.
Henkel discloses that two non-adjacent subsets of coils are possible, given the need for different sensing locations and heights (par 10, 25-26). Paragraph 10 teaches that the foreign object detection height “can be selected freely with the aid of a suitable energization of the individual array coils”. A similar discussion is found in paragraph 26. Paragraph 25 recites “Differing coil patterns are possible.” Henkel’s disclosure of different heights would prompt the skilled artisan to consider two sensing subsets that are: 1) non-adjacent (this can be entirely coincidental); and 2) periodically excited cyclically (this can be coincidental – if a user wanted detection height A today, height B tomorrow, height A again the day after that, etc. – then the excitation between the two different subsets would be “cyclic”).
This interpretation of the Henkel subsets was presented in previous office actions. It has not been addressed or rebutted – thus, it is presumed to be correct. Further, the Examiner notes that “periodically” has several definitions, including: at regular intervals or “from time to time” (see Merriam-Webster online dictionary; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periodically). Henkel’s alternating subsets are excited from time to time and, therefore, are periodic.
Henkel discloses the foreign object is detected by measuring a parameter (power) of the AC power signal of the excitation pulse (i.e. its electrical decay), but does not expressly disclose measuring this AC parameter at the injector output or comparing its change to a threshold. Henkel also does not expressly disclose the injector unit inputs DC power and converts to AC. Dibben discloses a device (fig 7-9, 15, 21; par 17, 138-167, 183-187, 201-204) for foreign object detection in a wireless power transfer system, the device comprising:
an injection unit (104 is an inverter) including an injector (104) and circuitry (the inverter) configured to receive a DC power signal and generate a first AC power signal in an FOD frequency range;
an array of coils (12n) operatively coupled to the injection unit and designed to generate a first electromagnetic field via a coil subset (a subset is one) of the array of coils when the coil subset is excited using the first AC power signal); and
a detection unit (116) operatively coupled to the array of coils (via 114) and configured to:
measure a parameter of the first AC power signal at an output terminal of the injection unit (fig 6, item 114; fig 15, items 312, 114; par 150, 166-167, 185-186) coupled to at least one coil of the excited coil subset; and
detect a presence of a foreign object within the first electromagnetic field based on a change in the parameter being greater than a threshold amount of change from a predefined value measured in an absence of the foreign object (par 17, 151, 161-163, 165, 185-186).
Dibben discloses a foreign object detector. The Dibben detection system injects (i.e. excites) an AC signal onto a coil array and measures DC and AC parameters. The AC parameter is clearly measured at the inverter (injector) output.
Dibben repeatedly compares the measured voltage to a threshold. This would include times when the measured voltage is the same as that expected when no foreign object is present and then at least one time when the measured voltage is different – it has changed to a value that cross the foreign object threshold. This threshold-crossing event obviously occurs “based on” the power having a threshold amount of change from the no-object value to the yes-object value (i.e. the amount of change necessary to go from one side of the threshold to the other). In other words, the “threshold amount of change” is the precision of the comparator. For example, if the Dibben comparator can only sense voltages in steps of 0.01v, then any change in measured voltage would have to be at least 0.01v to be detectable as a change from one side of a foreign object threshold to the other. The exact precision value is not relevant – one obviously exists. Thus, to detect a foreign object, the measured power must change (from the baseline no-object value) at least enough to be detected as a change.
The Examiner notes that the claim only broadly recites the foreign object is detected “based on” the change – the claim does not explicitly identify any actual comparison (by structure or functionality).
Figure 15 is disclosed as being equivalent to figure 6 (see par 183) – this figure discloses additional AC parameters are measured. Dibben figure 21 discloses a coil array. The specification indicates that the functionality of this figure is the same as that of figure 6 (par 203). Thus, citations to figures 6, 15 and 21 are all from the same or similar embodiment and are not a modification of each other.
Henkel and Dibben are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor as the pending application, namely wireless power systems with foreign object detectors. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Henkel to include the inverter within the injector, as taught by Dibben. The motivation for doing so would have been to accommodate for different sources. If the Dibben mat was to be used in a location with only DC power, then the skilled artisan would have understood the need for an inverter.
At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace Henkel’s foreign object detection parameter (electrical decay) with Dibben’s (injector output AC power change compared to a threshold). The motivation for doing so would have been the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP §2143(D).
Henkel discloses a “base” device – a mat with an array of excitable coils for detection of a foreign object. This base device can be improved upon by different sensing techniques and detection algorithms. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base device. Dibben discloses a foreign object detection technique that uses a coil array (like Henkel). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the Dibben technique would have yielded predictable results and an improved system. Henkel’s mat remains intact. Those predictable results would have been the accurate measurement of a foreign object’s immediate effects on the outgoing AC signal (instead of its after-effects – the decay).
Henkel discloses a single injector and does not expressly disclose a plurality of injectors. All of the Henkel coils appear to share one injector. Kesler discloses a coil array (fig 63) wherein the coils can be driven with a common injector or corresponding ones (par 696).
Henkel and Kesler are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely multi-coil arrays. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Henkel to have corresponding injectors, instead of just one, as taught by Kesler. Kesler teaches that the two embodiments are known. There are no unexpected benefits or hardships from changing between the two. Based on the availability of an embodiment with individual injectors (sources), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Henkel’s coils to have corresponding injectors.
The Examiner notes that Henkel already discloses that each coil can be individually energized (par 10, 25-26). This individual energization would be applied to the Kesler injectors. Thus, the combination teaches “each coil subset of the array of coils is individually coupled to a corresponding injector” and that the detection unit is configured to “individually control each injector of the plurality of injectors to operate in one of” the two operation modes.
Henkel and Kesler combine to teach the individually excited coil subsets and that each coil has its own injector. The combination does not expressly disclose that, during each cycle, the detection unit is capable of individual control over the injectors to operate in a continuous excitation mode and an intermittent excitation mode. Yu discloses a wireless power transmitter comprising an injector (inverter) and a detection unit capable of operating that injector in a continuous mode or an intermittent mode (par 26).
The combination and Kesler are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with inverter control. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Henkel detection unit to be “capable of” individually controlling the (Kesler) injectors to operate in either a continuous mode or an excitation mode, as taught by Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve power while detecting the presence of a receiver.
As previously discussed, and not addressed by the Applicants, the claim does not explicitly set forth when/why/how the detection unit would ever want/need to change operation modes. The capability to operate in a mode is not the same as reciting the conditions for actually changing the mode.
The Examiner notes that the phrase, “for varying detection speeds and power consumption” is a description of effects a user can observe from the two modes – it is not claimed (or argued by the Applicants) as a reason why a mode is selected by an automated controller. The claim does not recite that the detection unit senses conditions in the transmitter, compares them to a threshold, makes a determination that detection speed or power consumption needs to be changed, and then actually changes the excitation mode to realize the new speed/consumption value. The claim only broadly recites the capability of the detection unit to operate the injector(s) in the modes. Thus, no actual excitation (mode selection) is required to be taught by the prior art – just the capability. Yu discloses that both modes are possible, so long as the transmitter as a whole (the injector/inverter in combination with its upstream DC/DC converter) provides intermittent power during the detection interval.
With respect to claim 2, Dibben discloses the parameter of the first AC power signal comprises at least one member of a group consisting of current, a voltage, power, and a phase angle between the voltage and the current of the first AC power signal (par 161).22 324088-1
With respect to claim 3, Dibben discloses a sensing sub-unit (110, 112, 312 and/or 114) including:
one or more first sensors (fig 6, item 112) electrically coupled to the input terminal of the injection unit and configured to measure the parameter of at least the DC power signal (that a sensor is “configured to measure” does not require that the sensor output is actually used – claim 1 refers to DC or AC analysis, not both); and
one or more second sensors (114) electrically coupled to the output of the injection unit and configured to measure the parameter of at least first AC power signal.
With respect to claim 4, Dibben discloses the detection unit further comprises a processor (116) configured to:
compare the measured parameter to the predefined value to determine the change in the parameter (par 17, 151, 161-163, 165, 185-186); and
generate a control signal (par 125, first sentence) indicating the foreign object is detected when the change in the parameter is greater than the threshold amount (par 17, 151, 161-163, 165, 185-186).
Dibben discloses the comparison to a threshold in paragraph 167. Is noted that this limitation would also be obvious, as Dibben explicitly discloses being able to distinguish between the presence and absence of a foreign object. This is evidence of a threshold by which the measured parameter (injector AC output voltage) is compared to detect the status of the transmission system.
Dibben discloses that a foreign object detection results in a transmitter shutdown. The manner by which the comparison functionality notifies the rest of the transmitter that it is time to shut down is interpreted as the generation of a control signal. Without a generated control signal, the comparison mechanism would have no manner by which to share its results.
With respect to claim 5, Dibben discloses the detection unit further comprises a transceiver (to send the signal disclosed in the first sentence of par 125) operatively coupled to the processor and configured to transmit the control signal to cause a power transmission sub-system (not claimed) of the wireless power transfer system to the cease transmission of wireless power to a power reception sub-system (not claimed) when the detection unit detects the foreign objection (par 125, first sentence).
Dibben discloses that the system enters a shutdown mode when a foreign object is detected. The signal that causes this mode change is interpreted as the “control signal” and the structural component that sends it is interpreted as the “communication sub-unit”. The communication sub-unit is only defined by what it sends (taught by Dibben) and not by any structural features of the unit itself.
With respect to claim 7, Henkel discloses the array of coils is arranged to form at least one of a square pattern, a hexagonal pattern (par 24 “honeycomb arrangement”), one or more layered structures.
With respect to claim 10, Henkel (par 26; individual coils can be switched on/off to create patterns) and Dibben (par 207-208) both disclose a plurality of switches, wherein each of the switches is coupled to the injection unit and a corresponding coil subset, wherein the detection unit (Henkel item 13; Dibben item 116) is electrically coupled to the plurality of switches and configured to activate each of the switches to transmit the first AC power signal from the injection unit to the corresponding first coil of the array of coils (Henkel par 26 – the selection of coil patterns would be accomplished through the activation of specific switches; Dibben par 207-208 – each coil has its own switch).
Both Henkel and Dibben disclose the switches are individually actuated. Whatever mechanism controls them to open/close is interpreted as part of the “detection unit”.
With respect to claim 11, Henkel (par 26) and Dibben (par 207-208) disclose the detection unit is configured to select and drive one or more coils of the first coil subset for transmitting the first AC power signal by activating a corresponding switch of the plurality of switches (see analysis of claim 10), and wherein the one or more coils are selected to24324088-1 concurrently generate the first electromagnetic field corresponding to the first AC power signal (obvious – when an AC signal is applied to these coils, they will inherently generate an electromagnetic field to interact with, and be affected by, a foreign object).
With respect to claim 12, Henkel (par 26 – patterns; and par 27; activating every second coil) and Dibben (par 207, last sentence) disclose the detection unit is configured to activate each of the switches in the predefined order to select and drive a corresponding coil of the array of coils in the cyclic manner (par 207, last sentence).
Henkel’s operation of two detection heights is cyclic, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. The skilled artisan would have understood that the appropriate pattern of activated coils could repeat after one cycle is completed. This repeat could be immediate, after a delay, or after the next power-on cycle. And it could be entirely coincidental. Any of these renders obvious the functionality of “cyclic”.
With respect to claims 13-18, Henkel, Dibben, Kesler and Yu combine to disclose the apparatus necessary for completing the recited method steps (see also Dibben figure 5), and the references are analogous, as discussed above and below in the art rejections of claims 1-5 and 11. Claims 13-14 correspond to claims 1-2, respectively. Claim 15 repeats the limitations of both claims 3-4. Claim 16 corresponds to claim 5. Claims 17-18 correspond to claim 11. Henkel (par 26) and Dibben (par 207-208) both disclose using switches to selectively energize individual coils. Kesler discloses each coil has its own corresponding injector. Henkel discloses cyclically operating the two coil subsets. Therefore, the reference does so by operating the injectors in an intermittent operating mode.
With respect to claim 19, Henkel, Dibben and Kesler combine to disclose that their components “collectively form a foreign object detection sub-system”, the device further comprising:
a power transmission sub-system (Henkel item 11) sperate from the foreign object detection sub-system (13; the physical separation of these components is shown in figure 1) and comprising;
a power drive unit (obviously part of 11) configured to generate a second AC power signal (Henkel obviously creates a wireless power signal – the phrase “configured to generate the second AC power signal” is structural – it is not a functional limitation that positively introduces the second AC power signal into the claim as a distinct claimed limitation – the prior art only needs to show a drive unit that is configured to generate the second AC power signal, not that it is actually generated – Henkel discloses the relevant second AC power signal frequencies in paragraph 5);
a primary coil (Henkel 11; Dibben 12) operatively coupled to the power drive unit and configured to transmit the second AC power signal to a power reception sub-system, wherein the primary coil generates a second electromagnetic field (obvious; a coil generates a magnetic field when AC current passes through it); and
a control unit operatively coupled to the power drive unit and configured to cause the power drive unit-to cease transmission of the second AC power signal when the foreign object is detected (Dibben par 125, first sentence – the fact that the shutdown mode is entered is evidence of a control unit that successfully receives the control signal and follows the associated command to cease wireless power transmission).
With respect to claim 23, Henkel discloses the mat is a stand-along structure (see fig 1) configured to detachably couple to the power transmission sub-system (par 24). Henkel discloses that the mat (13) is physically separate from, and preferably lies on, the transmitter (11).
With respect to claim 25, Henkel discloses the mat is configured to conform to a shape covering a surface area of the power transmission sub-system (see fig 1).
With respect to claim 29, Henkel, Dibben and Kesler combine to disclose the detection unit is configured to transmit a control signal to cause the power transmission sub-system to activate a subset of array of coils (Dibben, par 125; the absence of a foreign object means that the combination’s mat sends a signal to allow wireless power transfer to begin/continue; Henkel par 25, “patterns can still be operated” … “Differing patterns are possible” means that a subset of coils is active).
The limitation are “such that” is interpreted as an obvious consequence of the control signal transmission. Support is as follows.
First, the power transmission sub-system is not claimed. Limitations directed to the actions it takes, in response to the detection unit’s control signal, do not further limit the detection unit. The claim does not recite that the detection unit sends a command to activate X coils and not excite Y coils. Rather, the claim is limited to the structure of the detection unit as “configured to transmit a control signal”.
Second, the claim recites a “such that” clause. The “to activate” phrase is recited as an active verb, but the “are not excited” is written in a passive tense. This indicates an action that happens outside of the scope of the claim (outside of the control of the claimed mat).
Third, the claim only broadly recites “near the foreign object”. The claim does not recite that a foreign object has been detected. The claim does not distinguish over the combination’s active-coil pattern being away from the foreign object (such that those coils near the object are those not included in the pattern).
Therefore, the combination is interpreted a disclosing that its detection unit is configured to send the control signal such that one or more of the coils of the power transmission sub-system near a foreign object are not excited.
The lack of a response to this interpretation indicates that it is correct and will continue to be applied.
Alternatively, should the Applicants argue that this “such that” limitation imparts narrowing structure into the claim (they have never made such remarks despite this interpretation being presented over multiple office actions), Henkel discloses that the power transmitter can maintain active coils regardless of faults in individual coils (par 25). Within the combination, a Henkel “failed individual cell” is interpreted as a Dibben deactivated coil (the result of an actually detected foreign object). Thus, the combination teaches the detection unit is configured to transmit a control signal to activate some transmitter coils and “such that” other coils are not excited.
With respect to claim 34, Henkel obviously teaches the mat is configured for use with a plug-and-play structure of a power transmission sub-system (power transmission sub-system is not claimed; the plug-and-play structure is not claimed; there is no evidence presented that “configured for use” must impart any narrowing structure into the claim; see analysis below).
Henkel’s mat is configured for use with the reference’s mat. Henkel does not indicate that the user must complete an installation procedure, interact with a keypad (Remarks 5/4/23, page 9), or undertake some sort of Bluetooth pairing (see Remarks, 5/4/23, page 9) in order to get its mat to operate with the transmitter. Thus, Henkel is interpreted as teaching the broadest reasonable interpretation of “configured for use”.
The Henkel mat is interpreted as being “configured for use” with a plug and plug structure of a transmitter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not impart any narrowing structure into the claimed device. As previously discussed (and not rebutted over multiple office actions and replies), the specification does not disclose what this plug and play structure is, except that it is part of an unclaimed “power transmission subsystem” (par 54, lines 4-6). The Applicants have not presented any arguments or evidence to indicate what physical/electrical structure must be included in the mat to give it the “configured for use” ability that it would have had without this physical/electrical structure.
With respect to claim 37, Dibben discloses the circuitry includes a processor (116). The use of “or” in the claim means that the prior art is only required to disclose one of the three options.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkel in view of Dibben, Kesler and Louis (US 2019/0028148).
With respect to claim 38, Henkel discloses the injection unit generates the first AC power signal in a FOD frequency range that is higher than a power transmission frequency of the power transmission sub-system.
Henkel’s mat can be physically moved to be proximate to any wireless power transmitter, including one with a lower second frequency. Such a physical movement is not a modification of the Henkel mat. Such a physical movement does not have to be purposeful; it could be random or coincidental. It would have been obvious that, during the lifetime of the Henkel system, its FOD frequency can be higher than a power transmission frequency of some unknown and undefined transmission sub-system.
The Examiner notes that the wireless power transfer system is not claimed (it is an intended use of the device, as stated in the preamble). There obviously exists a (undefined) wireless power transmission system with a frequency that is lower than Henke’s FOD frequency. Even one didn’t exist, one could be built/manufactured – this would not be a modification of the prior art (only the reference point, which isn’t being claimed).
To make the record complete, namely as it is the Applicants’ intention to recite a specific frequency reference point, Louis discloses a wireless power transfer system with an FOD frequency (par 117-178) that is higher than Henke’s power transmission frequency (par 5). Henkel and Louis are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmission systems with foreign object detection. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Henkel’s FOD frequency to be in the range taught by Louis. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect different types of objects in the space between wireless power transmitter and receiver. Louis discloses that the FOD can frequency hop. This would obviously include frequencies that are higher than Henkel’s lowest transmission frequency (30kHz).
With respect to claim 39, the combination of Henkel and Louis teach the FOD frequency range and the power transmission frequency are based on a wireless power transfer standard to which the power transmission sub-system complies.
As previously shown (see Non-Final 3/28/25; pages 2-5), Henkel’s power transmission frequency (30-150kHz) overlaps with what the Applicants define as compliant with their preferred standard (see specification, par 23; 80-90kHz). Thus, Louis’ FOD frequency and Henkel’s power transmission frequency are “based on” the standard.
The breadth of “based on” was noted in the previous Action (NF 3/28/25; pages 2-5) and has not been addressed or rebutted. The Applicants are using “based on” to refer to frequencies that are similar and ones that are many times different. No explanation is provided for how “based on” is intended to be interpreted or how it can simultaneously define the two frequencies.
The combination’s frequencies “comply” as claimed because they are within the disclosed ranges. And because the claim only broadly requires that the FOD/transmission frequencies are “based on” the compliant frequency (not that they actually are the compliant frequencies). The Applicants have been put on notice regarding the breadth of the language used. The same language has been incorporated into claims 38-39 and no rebuttal has been forthcoming. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation of the language is presumed to be cored.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836