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 Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the amendment filed on December 22, 2025.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered. Rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, new rejections based on the amended claims have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected, and this action is made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues none of the applied references disclose or suggest "deactivating the first coil while the another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated" as recited in claim 1 as amended or "means for deactivating and activating one of the adjacent charging coils as a function of the result of said comparison, and wherein if the value representing the deviation ("CONTROL ERROR") between the required charging power and the received power is less than the first threshold, the first threshold being a negative value, then deactivating said one of the adjacent charging coils while another of the adjacent charging coils remains activated, and if the charging conditions parameter is greater than said predetermined threshold representing charging limit conditions meaning that the charging is not optimal, then activating said another of the adjacent charging coils to said one of the adjacent charging coil whilst keeping said one of the adjacent charging coils activated" as recited in claim 3 as amended.
Neither Louis nor Jung discloses or suggests deactivating the first coil while the another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated as recited in claims 1 and 3 as amended, claims 1 and 3 should be allowable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 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.
Chen et al. (US 2018/0337557) teaches if the charging conditions parameter (L) is greater than a predetermined threshold representing charging limit conditions meaning that the charging is not optimal, then activating another coil adjacent to said first charging coil whilst keeping the first charging coil activated (Par.26-27, 40-41 and 65; If the inductance (L) of a coil is higher than the expected value for that coil; the coil is activated for optimal power transfer.).
Jung et al. (US 2014/0015334) teaches if a value representing the deviation between the required charging power and the received power is less than a first threshold (certain amount), wherein the first threshold is a negative value then deactivating a coil (Par.91; The received power is higher than the required power therefore the corresponding amount of the value representing the deviation is negative.).
Newly applied reference Moshfeghi (US 2011/0156640) teaches deactivating a first coil while another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated (Fig.19,1920) when the received power meets a threshold (Fig.19,1915) (Par.138).
The claims are rejected based on the combination of Chen in view of Louis, Jung and Moshfeghi as seen in the office action below.
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.
In terms of claim 3, the recitations “means for determining...”, “means for simultaneously activating…”,”means for periodically receiving”, “means for comparing…”, and “means for deactivating and activating”, appear to invoke 35 USC 112(f). A careful review of the Specification appears to equate the recited means to a microcontroller (Paragraph 0041). The examiner interprets the recited “means” as the microcontroller or its equivalents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2018/0337557) in view of Louis (US 2019/0068004), Jung et al. (US 2014/0015334) and Moshfeghi (US 2011/0156640).
Claims 1 and 8: Chen teaches a method for induction charging portable equipment (10) (Fig.1) of a user using a charging device (12) comprising at least two transmitter coils (36) and having a charging surface capable of receiving said equipment for the charging thereof, the method comprising:
placing the portable equipment (10) on the charging surface and activating a first charging coil (36) (Par.19-20);
determining a charging conditions parameter on the basis of measurements of the charging device (12), wherein the charging conditions parameter is determined based on an inductance (L) of the first charging coil (36) (Par.29 and 38);
if the charging conditions parameter (L) is greater than a predetermined threshold representing charging limit conditions meaning that the charging is not optimal, then activating another coil adjacent to said first charging coil whilst keeping the first charging coil activated (Par.26-27, 40-41 and 65; If the inductance (L) of a coil is higher than the expected value for that coil; the coil is activated for optimal power transfer.),
otherwise, repeating the preceding steps (Par.31; The steps are periodically performed to detect the presence of objects in the charging surface and take appropriate action.).
Chen does not explicitly teach periodically receiving a signal by the charging device from the portable equipment during charging, said signal comprising a value representing a deviation ("CONTROL ERROR") between a charging power required by the portable equipment and a charging power received by said equipment; if the value representing the deviation ("CONTROL ERROR") between the required charging power and the received power is a negative value, then deactivating the first coil; wherein the negative value of the first threshold is -10.
Louis teaches a method for induction charging portable equipment (3) (Fig.1) of a user using a charging device (2), the method comprising:
periodically receiving a signal by the charging device (2) from the portable equipment (3) during charging (Par.98), said signal comprising a value representing a deviation (control error packet) between a charging power required by the portable equipment (3) and a charging power received by said equipment (3) (Par.86);
the value representing the deviation (control error packet) between the required charging power and the received power is compared to a first threshold (Par.111; Taking corrective action based on the comparison.), the first threshold is a negative value (Par.13-14),
then deactivating a first coil based on the comparison (Par.114; The corrective action including reducing the level of the magnetic field by disconnecting power from a primary coil.);
wherein the negative value of the first threshold is -10 (Par.92 and 134, 5W (Power required) – 15W (Power received) = -10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Louis in the system of Chen to have had performed a corrective action (Par.134) to protect a receiver from damage due to exposure to a large voltage (Par.93).
The combination of Chen in view of Louis does not explicitly teach deactivating the first coil if the value representing the deviation between the required charging power and the received power is less than a first threshold.
Jung teaches if a value representing the deviation between the required charging power and the received power is less than a first threshold (certain amount), wherein the first threshold is a negative value then deactivating a coil (Par.91; The received power is higher than the required power therefore the corresponding amount of the value representing the deviation is negative.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Jung in the combination of Chen and Louis to have had suspended transmission of wireless power when the power transmitted exceeds the power required by a certain amount (Par.91) thereby preventing heat generation and inefficient power supply (Par.69).
The combination of Chen in view of Louis and Jung does not explicitly teach deactivating the first coil while the another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated.
Moshfeghi teaches deactivating a first coil while another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated (Fig.19,1920) when the power received meets a threshold (Fig.19,1915) (Par.138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Moshfeghi in the combination of Chen and Jung to have had decreased a number of coils supplying power when a power received threshold is reached to continue power generation until the power level reaches a maximum (Par.138) thereby improving charging efficiency.
Claim 2: Chen in view of Louis, Jung and Moshfeghi teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Chen does not explicitly teach a charging conditions parameter is determined on the basis of a value of an alternating current circulating in the first charging coil, and a value of an alternating voltage at the terminals of said first charging coil.
Louis teaches wherein a charging conditions parameter is determined on the basis of a value of an alternating current circulating in a first charging coil (7), and a value of an alternating voltage at the terminals of said first charging coil (7) (Par.85 and 115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Louis in the system of Chen to have had controlled a magnetic field strength output by the transmitter based on the current and voltage at the transmitting charging coil (Par.85) thereby efficiently transferring power.
Claims 3-4: Chen teaches a charging device (12) for charging portable equipment (10) of a user (The examiner notes a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the charging device of Chen is capable of performing the intended use of being placed on board a vehicle.), comprising at least two transmitter coils (36) and having a charging surface capable of receiving said equipment (10) for the charging thereof, the charging device (12) comprising:
means, comprising software included in a microcontroller (Par.21), for determining a charging conditions parameter on the basis of measurements of the charging device (12), and for comparing between said parameter and a predetermined threshold representing charging limit conditions, meaning that the charging is not optimal, wherein the charging conditions parameter is determined based on an inductance (L) of the first charging coil (36) (Par.29 and 38);
means, comprising software included in a microcontroller (Par.21), for simultaneously activating adjacent charging coils as a function of the result of said comparison (Par.26-27, 40-41 and 65; If the inductance (L) of a coil is higher than the expected value; coils are selected to be activated for optimal power transfer.) (Fig.2),
if the charging conditions parameter (L) is greater than a predetermined threshold representing charging limit conditions meaning that the charging is not optimal, then activating another coil adjacent to said first charging coil whilst keeping the first charging coil activated (Par.26-27, 40-41 and 65; If the inductance (L) of a coil is higher than the expected value for that coil; the coil is activated for optimal power transfer.).
Chen does not explicitly teach means for periodically receiving a signal by the charging device from the portable equipment during charging, said signal comprising a value representing a deviation ("CONTROL ERROR") between a charging power required by the portable equipment and a charging power received by said equipment; first means for comparing between the value representing the deviation ("CONTROL ERROR") between a charging power required by the portable equipment and a charging power received by said equipment and a first threshold, wherein the first threshold is a negative value; and means for deactivating and activating one of the adjacent charging coils as a function of the result of said comparison, and wherein if the value representing the deviation between the required charging power and the received power is less than the first threshold, the threshold being a negative value, then deactivating said one of the adjacent charging coils.
Louis teaches a charging device (2), comprising:
means, comprising software included in a microcontroller (Par.79), for periodically receiving a signal from the portable equipment (3) during charging (Par.84 and 98), said signal comprising a value representing a deviation (control error packet) between a charging power required by the portable equipment (3) and a charging power received by said equipment (3) (Par.86);
first means, comprising software included in a microcontroller (Par.79), for comparing between the value representing the deviation (control error packet) between the required charging power and the received power and a first threshold (Par.111; Taking corrective action based on the comparison.), wherein the first threshold is a negative value (Par.13-14), and
means, comprising software included in a microcontroller (Par.79), for deactivating and activating a charging coil as a function of the result of said comparison (Par.114; The corrective action including reducing the level of the magnetic field by disconnecting power from a primary coil.), and wherein if the value representing the deviation (control error packet) between the required charging power and the received power is compared to a first threshold (Par.111; Taking corrective action based on the comparison.), the first threshold being a negative value (Par.13-14), then deactivating a coil (Par.114; The corrective action including reducing the level of the magnetic field by disconnecting power from a primary coil.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Louis in the system of Chen to have had performed a corrective action (Par.134) to protect a receiver from damage due to exposure to a large voltage (Par.93).
The combination of Chen in view of Louis does not explicitly teach deactivating the first coil if the value representing the deviation between the required charging power and the received power is less than a first threshold.
Jung teaches if a value representing the deviation between the required charging power and the received power is less than a first threshold (certain amount), wherein the first threshold is a negative value then deactivating a coil (Par.91; The received power is higher than the required power therefore the corresponding amount of the value representing the deviation is negative.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Jung in the combination of Chen and Louis to have had suspended transmission of wireless power when the power transmitted exceeds the power required by a certain amount (Par.91) thereby preventing heat generation and inefficient power supply (Par.69).
The combination of Chen in view of Louis and Jung does not explicitly teach deactivating the first coil while the another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated.
Moshfeghi teaches deactivating a first coil while another coil adjacent to the first coil remains activated (Fig.19,1920) when the power received meets a threshold (Fig.19,1915) (Par.138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Moshfeghi in the combination of Chen and Jung to have had decreased a number of coils supplying power when a power received threshold is reached to continue power generation until the power level reaches a maximum (Par.138) thereby improving charging efficiency.
Claim 5: Chen in view of Louis, Jung and Moshfeghi teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Chen teaches a non-transitory computer program product, comprising a set of program code instructions, which, when they are executed by one or more processor(s), configure the one or more processor(s) to implement a charging method (Par.21).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2018/0337557) in view of Louis (US 2019/0068004), Jung et al. (US 2014/0015334) and Moshfeghi (US 2011/0156640) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Park (US 2019/0165596).
Claim 6: Chen in view of Louis, Jung and Moshfeghi teach the limitations of claim 3 as disclosed above. Chen does not explicitly teach a motor vehicle comprising a charging device as claimed in claim 3.
Park discloses a motor vehicle comprising a charging device for charging portable equipment of a user (Par.138).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Park in the system of Chen to have had the expected result of charging a user device while in a vehicle (Par.138) if desired.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2018/0337557) in view of Louis (US 2019/0068004), Jung et al. (US 2014/0015334) and Moshfeghi (US 2011/0156640) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2019/0148986).
Claim 7: Chen in view of Louis, Jung and Moshfeghi teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Chen in view of Louis, Jung and Moshfeghi does not explicitly teach the negative value of the first threshold is -20.
Yoo discloses a value representing a deviation (control error value) between a required charging power and a received power is less than -20 (Par.270, The value of the deviation includes values between -128 and -20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Yoo in the combination to have had lowered the transmission of power of a wireless power transmission apparatus based on the amount of negative value of the deviation (Par.270) thereby accurately adjusting a transmitting power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (US 2018/0159371) discloses setting a control error value to a negative value when the received power exceeds a selected range (Par.131).
Park et al. (US 2021/0351627) teaches varying the number of operating coils based on a control error data received from a power receiver (200) (Par.20 and 199-200).
Fine (US 2016/0072298) discloses a power transmitter dynamically reconfiguring coils (122) to accommodate movement of a receiver device (Par.41).
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 JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights