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
Applicant's arguments filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In future replies, the Applicant is requested to cite to the specification for written description support of all amendments.
The specification states, “the internal control unit 108 is adapted to determine the currently required amount of energy , (either energy per time unit or accumulated energy)” (page 8, lines 11-15). The specification does not define what is meant by “per time unit”. In Balding, the controller controls the transfer of energy “per charging cycle” (see at least par 65). This charging cycle is interpreted as a time unit.
Furthermore, the creation of the claimed input is by an unclaimed internal control unit. How or why the internal control unit determines that charging is over (power vs energy) is irrelevant to the claimed limitation of receiving a message and, in response, moving the primary coil away from the secondary coil. The reason for creating the message does not affect the structure or functionality of the device for supplying electrical energy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 58-63, 65-66, 68 and 78-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bowling (US 2006/0273756).
With respect to claim 58, Forsell discloses a device (fig 2; par 36-54) for supplying electrical energy to a medical device (not claimed; intended use) implanted in a patient, said device comprising:
a primary coil (20 and/or 21) configured to be arranged outside of the patient and to transfer energy inductively to a secondary coil (22 and/or 23 – the secondary coil is not claimed) arranged inside the patient and electrically coupled to said medical device (where/what the unclaimed secondary coil is does not further limit the structure of the primary coil);
a coil displacer (28, 32, 35, 40) configured to displace the primary coil relative to the secondary coil (par 39, the Bowling displacer can move the primary coil along three dimensions, i.e. six directions); and
a controller (32) operable to selectively control the coil displacer to displace the primary coil relative to the secondary coil such that a distance between the primary/secondary coils is increased (par 38, 47 – the primary coil returns to its original, remote from the secondary coil, position after charging is complete) in response to receiving input indicating that energy-transfer from the primary coil to the secondary coil exceeds a required amount of energy per time unit (par 38, 42, 49-51, 53-54, 65-66), thereby decreasing said energy transfer (when the primary coil moves away from the secondary coil, efficiency is decreased and so is energy transfer).
The implanted medical device and its secondary coil are intended use limitations. MPEP §2111.02(II). The body of the claim indicates that the scope of the claim is limited to the device for supplying electrical energy (the external wireless power transmitter) and the structure to physically move of the primary coil. Bowling discloses a coil displacer for moving the wireless power transmitting primary coil in any of three dimensions to increase coupling and efficiency.
The Bowling transmitter device controls wireless power transmission to a receiver in charging cycles. Each cycle is a “time unit” and when sufficient energy “per time unit” is provided to the receiver, the receiver sends a message (input indicating that charging is over) and the transmitter moves its primary coil away from the secondary (to let the receiver drive away).
Alignment and distance inherently affects efficiency. This is supported by paragraph 42, where Bowling explicitly states that charging time is based on alignment (i.e. efficiency). Bowling’s controller is configured to control the coil displacer to move the primary coil away from the secondary coil when charging is complete. This movement decreases the energy transfer.
The claim does not define “per time unit” – this limitation is interpreted as a Bowling charging cycle. Furthermore, the determination of energy per time unit is made in the unclaimed receiver (see specification, page 8, lines 11-15). The threshold to which the receiver compares energy transfer (whether energy, power or some other metric) does not further limit the structure or the functionality of the transmitter/device. The transmitter/device is defined by its ability to receive an input and, in response, move the primary coil away from the secondary. Bowling anticipates the message reception and the resulting primary coil movement. Changing what the message says (too much power instead of too much energy) does not change the analysis. First, the exceeds comparison is unclaimed (the receiver is not claimed). Second, the transmitter reacts in the same way regardless of whether the message is power-based or energy-based.
The phrase “energy per time unit” also does not require the receiver’s threshold to be “power”. As noted above, the time unit is the Bowling charging cycle (energy over several seconds or minutes to bring the receiver battery to its target state of charge – see par 38).
Alternatively, Bowling discloses the termination of charging is based on receiver feedback including voltage and current. Voltage and current are instantaneous values to indicate power levels. Thus, Bowling would still anticipate the claim if it were amended to more clearly refer to power.
With respect to claim 59, Bowling discloses the coil displacer comprises a motor (40) configured to move the primary coil relative to the secondary coil.
With respect to claim 60, Bowling discloses the motor comprises a position sensor (35; par 39) configured to provide position information related to the primary coil.
With respect to claim 61, Bowling discloses the motor is configured to adjust the distance between the primary coil and the secondary coil (par 39, the “z” axis is up/down towards/away from the secondary coil).
With respect to claim 62, Bowling discloses the motor is configured to rotate the primary coil around an axis orthogonal to a portion of the patient's skin arranged between the primary coil and the secondary coil (par 39). Through movements in the x- and y-axes, the Bowling motor is configured to rotate the coil around an axis that extends in the z-axis.
With respect to claim 63, Bowling discloses the motor is configured to rotate the primary coil around an axis parallel to a portion of the patient's skin arranged between the primary coil and the secondary coil (par 39). Through movements in the y- and z-axes, the Bowling motor is configured to rotate the coil around an axis that extends in the x-axis (parallel to the user’s skin). Or, using movements in the x- and z-axes, the Bowling motor is configured to rotate the coil around the y-axis.
With respect to claim 65, Bowling discloses the controller is configured to control the coil displacer based on a control signal indicating a target characteristic of the energy to be supplied to the medical device (par 42, 49-51, 53).
With respect to claim 66, Bowling discloses the target characteristic indicates a relation between the energy received by the secondary coil and a predetermined target value (par 42, 49-51, 53).
Bowling’s controller receives information regarding the receiver’s battery operating conditions, including “battery current, battery voltage, battery temperature” (par 49). The battery voltage “indicates” the efficiency of power transfer to the receiver.
Claim 65 recites that the controller operates “based on a control signal indicating a target characteristic” and claim 66 recites that the “target characteristic indicates a relation”. The underlined (“based on” and the repeated use of “indicates”) significantly broadens the claim. The claim only implies a correlation between energy received and the coil displacer control. Energy received “indicates” a characteristic, the characteristic “indicates” a control signal, and then coil displacer control is only loosely “based on” the control signal. There are too many broadening phrases to impart any specific structural features.
The Applicant may consider amending the claim to explicitly recite communication circuitry (to actually receive information from the receiver about energy received), a comparator to compare the received energy information to a predetermined target, a connection from the comparator to the controller, and explicitly language in the claim that defines how the controller uses the high/low status of the received energy to directly change the coil displacer. Additional suggestions are provided below in the analysis of claims 67-68.
With respect to claim 68, Bowling discloses the controller is configured to selectively control the coil displacer to displace the primary coil relative to the secondary coil such that the distance between the primary/second coils is decreased (par 39, 43 – the arrival of a receiver means that the transmitter/device needs to align its primary coil -i.e. by moving it closer to the secondary coil), in response to receiving input indicating that the energy transfer from the primary coil to the secondary coil is less than a second target value (par 49-51, 53, 65), thereby increasing said energy transfer (inherent that moving coils closer improves their efficiency and the amount of energy transfer).
In response to receiver feedback (“input indicating”) that includes battery charge levels, the Bowling transmitter/device determines if a charging session should be initiated – at which point its controller moves the primary coil into position for wireless charging.
With respect to claim 78, Bowling discloses the controller is operable to selectively control the coil displacer to displace the primary coil relative to the secondary coil during energy transfer (par 39). The Bowling alignment sensors include physical sensors – the Bowling controller is interpreted as operable to react to changes in physical alignment at all times. The claim only broadly recites “operable to” without reciting any time/conditions in which it would actually happen.
With respect to claims 79-80, moving the primary coil inherently includes either moving it towards or away from the secondary coil. As discussed above increasing/decreasing distance inherently results in a decrease/increase in energy transfer (and efficiency).
Claims 79-80 are descriptive of “such that” benefits of moving the primary coil. They do not recite when, why or how the primary coil is actually moved. As Bowling anticipate moving/displacing the primary coil (both towards and away from the secondary), it follows that it would have the same “such that” effects on power transfer.
Conclusion
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 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