DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on April 14, 2026, claims 1-4, 6, 8-12 and 15-19 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 19 are amended and claims 5, 7 and 13-14 are previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the series connection and alternating polarity in Davis are used to improve power distribution efficiency and magnetic coupling symmetry for transmission, not to detect field perturbations caused by foreign objects (see page 8 of applicant remarks).
However, it is the reference of Wageningen that teaches the feature of detecting the presence of an object. The reference of Davis is used to teach a configuration or arrangement of the coils with respect to each other. The references are analogous as both references are related to wireless charging of a device.
The applicant argues that Davis does not disclose a signal detection network formed by multiple detection coils interconnected together configured to generate one passive detection signal (see pages 8-9 of applicant remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single detection network that generates a passive detection signal) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims recite that the coils are connected in series with alternating polarities which is described in the cited ¶87.
The applicant argues that the alternating polarity pattern of Davis does not disclose that the geometry is intended to compensate spatial heterogeneity for detection purposes (see page 9 of applicant arguments).
In response to applicant's argument that the intended use of compensation, 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The applicant argues that Davis does not teach a detection-based perturbation sensing system that would require a change in operation al principle (see page 9 of applicant remarks).
However, it should be noted that the feature of a monitoring for a disparity is taught by Wageningen as described in the rejection below. The reference of Davis is used to show a coil configuration in detection coils. It should be further noted that Davis also teaches current/voltage level is detected between coils or pairs of coils to determine fluctuations (see ¶106-107 of Davis). Thus, the teachings of Davis are analogous. Further, 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The applicant argues that Wageningen des not teach spatial information emerging form the geometry of the interconnected polarity network itself (see pages 9-10 of applicant remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., special information emerging from the geometry of the interconnected polarity network) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It should be noted that Davis teaches using the coil configuration to determine the location of the device to be charged and adjusting the charging according to the detection (see Davis, ¶93-97)
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 1-4, 6, 8-12, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wageningen US20200328616A1 in view of Davis US20130119773A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wageningen discloses a method of operating a wireless electromagnetic induction charger (FIG. 3), the method comprising:
causing excitation of a primary charging coil (103) of the wireless electromagnetic induction charger (FIG. 2) to generate an electromagnetic field for wireless charging (¶89 - the power transmitter 101 can support wireless power transfers by generating a power transfer signal; ¶121 - electromagnetic element present), wherein the generated electromagnetic field induces a first voltage across a first detection coil and a second voltage across a second detection coil (¶133; FIG. 3 - 213);
monitoring for a disparity between the first and second voltages, wherein the disparity is caused by a presence of an object in a vicinity of the first or second detection coils (¶133 foreign object detector 219 may e.g. perform a comparison by determining the difference between the actual measurement value for each detection coil 213 and the corresponding reference measurement value; if a subset, or specifically one, of the measurement values results in a high difference measure, this may indicate that a foreign object is indeed present); and
in response to the monitoring indicating a disparity, causing the excitation to cease (¶151 - it is desirable for the system to detect the presence of such objects and e.g. to shut down the power transfer in response)
wherein the generated electromagnetic field induces a third voltage across a third detection coil and a fourth voltage across a fourth detection coil (¶133 – measurement value for each detection coil 21),
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils are arranged together to span substantially a full height and width of the primary charging coil (FIG. 3 - the matrix of coils 213 fill the height and width of the transmitter coil 103),
wherein the monitoring comprises monitoring a single voltage corresponding to the sum of the induced voltages from the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils (¶144 - The detection may then be performed based on these difference values. For example, an overall difference value may be calculated as e.g. the sum or average of the pair difference values)
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils are arranged in a matrix (FIG. 3 - 213 is illustrated in a matrix).
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils are arranged in a common plane (¶80 – the detection coils are arranged in a two-dimensional array, thus one of ordinary skill would understand this to disclose being in the same or common plane).
Wageningen does not explicitly teach that the third and fourth detection coils are connected in series with the first and second detection coils, and the detection coils are arranged such that they alternate between opposing polarities both vertically and horizontally.
Davis discloses the third and fourth detection coils are connected in series with the first and second detection coils (¶87 – coils connected in series and arranged coplanar – or in the same plane; FIG. 12 and 15);
the detection coils are arranged such that they alternate between opposing polarities both vertically and horizontally (FIG .12/15 – polarities are alternating; ¶95 – coils are arranged in an alternating checkerboard pattern of coil polarity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Regarding claim 2, Wageningen discloses that the indicated disparity comprises a difference between a magnitude of the first voltage and a magnitude of the second voltage exceeding a predetermined threshold (¶133 – if a detection coil measurement value results in a high difference measure, this indicates that a foreign object is present – because the difference is high, it follows that a threshold is exceeded)
Regarding claim 3, Wageningen does not explicitly disclose that the first and second detection coils have opposing polarities, such that the first voltage and the second voltage are substantially in anti-phase.
Davis discloses that the first and second detection coils have opposing polarities, such that the first voltage and the second voltage are substantially in anti-phase. (¶87 – coils are connected in series such that adjacent coils exhibit reverse polarities (N+S) to each other thus being anti-phase).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Regarding claim 4, Wageningen discloses that the first and second detection coils are substantially equidistant from the primary charging coil (FIG. 4 illustrates the detection coils to be equal in distance to the transmitter coil), such that the first voltage and the second voltage are of substantially equal magnitude (¶133 – if no foreign objects are present then the differences are small or zero).
Regarding claim 6, Wageningen discloses monitoring for a disparity between voltages of detection coils, wherein the disparity is caused by a presence of an object in a vicinity of the coils (¶133 For example, the difference values may be determined and all detection coils 213 for which the difference exceeds a threshold may be identified.).
Wageningen discloses in response to the monitoring indicating a disparity, causing the excitation to cease (¶151 - it is desirable for the system to detect the presence of such objects and e.g. to shut down the power transfer in response) .
Regarding claim 8, Wageningen discloses that in response to the monitoring indicating the disparity, emitting a visible or audible warning (¶165 – transmitter includes a display to provide a user output).
Regarding claim 9, Wageningen discloses a wireless charger (FIG. 3).
Wageningen discloses that the wireless charger discloses a primary charging coil (103).
Wageningen discloses that the wireless charger discloses charging control electronics (217/219/203) configured to cause excitation of the primary charging coil to generate an electromagnetic field for wireless charging (¶89 - the power transmitter 101 can support wireless power transfers by generating a power transfer signal; ¶121 - electromagnetic element present) .
Wageningen discloses that the wireless charger discloses a plurality of detection coils comprising: a first detection coil (213), arranged such that the generated electromagnetic field induces a first voltage across the first detection coil (¶133; FIG. 3 - 213)
Wageningen discloses that the wireless charger discloses a second detection coil (213), arranged such that the generated electromagnetic field induces a second voltage across the second detection coil (¶133; FIG. 3 - 213).
Wageningen discloses that the wireless charger discloses signal processing electronics configured to monitor for a disparity between the first voltage and the second voltage caused by a presence of an object in a vicinity of the first or second detection coils (¶133 foreign object detector 219 may e.g. perform a comparison by determining the difference between the actual measurement value for each detection coil 213 and the corresponding reference measurement value; if a subset, or specifically one, of the measurement values results in a high difference measure, this may indicate that a foreign object is indeed present) and, in response to the monitoring indicating a disparity, transmit to the charging control electronics a command to cause the excitation to cease (¶151 - it is desirable for the system to detect the presence of such objects and e.g. to shut down the power transfer in response).
Wageningen discloses the plurality of detection coils comprises:
a third detection coil, arranged such that the generated electromagnetic field induces a third voltage across the third detection coil(¶133 – measurement value for each detection coil 21),
a fourth detection coil, arranged such that the generated electromagnetic field induces a fourth voltage across the fourth detection coil (¶133 – measurement value for each detection coil 21),
Wageningen discloses wherein the first, second, third, and forth coils are arranged to together span substantially a full height and width of the primary charging coil (FIG. 3 - the matrix of coils 213 fill the height and width of the transmitter coil 103),
Wageningen discloses the monitoring comprises monitoring a single voltage corresponding to the sum of the induced voltages from the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils (¶144 - The detection may then be performed based on these difference values. For example, an overall difference value may be calculated as e.g. the sum or average of the pair difference values)
Wageningen discloses plurality of detection coils are arranged in a matrix (FIG. 3 - 213 is illustrated in a matrix).
wherein the plurality of detection coils are arranged within a common plane (¶80 – the detection coils are arranged in a two-dimensional array, thus one of ordinary skill would understand this to disclose being in the same or common plane).
Wageningen does not explicitly teach that the third and fourth detection coils are connected in series with the first and second detection coils, and the detection coils are arranged such that they alternate between opposing polarities both vertically and horizontally.
Davis discloses the third and fourth detection coils are connected in series with the first and second detection coils (¶87 – coils connected in series and arranged coplanar – or in the same (common) plane; FIG. 12 and 15);
the detection coils are arranged such that they alternate between opposing polarities both vertically and horizontally (FIG .12/15 – polarities are alternating; ¶95 – coils are arranged in an alternating checkerboard pattern of coil polarity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Regarding claim 10, Wageningen discloses that the first and second detection coils are substantially equidistant from the primary charging coil (FIG. 4 illustrates the detection coils to be equal in distance to the transmitter coil).
Regarding claim 11, Wageningen discloses that wherein the first detection coil and the second detection coil are substantially identical (FIG. 3, each of the detection coils are shown to be the same and are all indicated with the same reference numeral 213).
Regarding claim 12, Wageningen does not explicitly disclose that the first and second detection coils have opposing polarities, such that the first voltage and the second voltage are substantially in anti-phase.
Murakami discloses that the first and second detection coils have opposing polarities, such that the first voltage and the second voltage are substantially in anti-phase. (¶87 – coils are connected in series such that adjacent coils exhibit reverse polarities (N+S) to each other thus being anti-phase).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Regarding claim 15, Wageningen discloses the wireless charger comprises one or more further detection coils (further detection coils 213 FIG. 3) arranged such that the generated electromagnetic field induces one or more further voltages across the one or more further detection coils ( ¶133; FIG. 3 - 213);
Wageningen discloses the first detection coil, the second detection coil, and the one or more further detection coils are arranged to together cover an entirety of a charging pad of the wireless charger (FIG. 3).
Wageningen discloses in absence of an object on the charging pad, the first voltage, the second voltage, and the one or more further voltages sum to zero volts (¶133/144 if no foreign objects are currently present, this should result in a smooth spatial variation of differences which are furthermore likely to be small, and ideally zero – under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the threshold of Wageningen includes zero. Thus, if the there is no object the voltages, along with the differences is zero. The sum of zero will still be zero).
Wageningen does not explicitly disclose the first detection coil, the second detection coil, and the one or more further detection coils are all connected in series.
Davis discloses the first detection coil, the second detection coil, and the one or more further detection coils are all connected in series (¶87 – primary coils connected in series; FIG. 15 illustrates multiple primary coils in addition to the first and the second).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Regarding claim 16, Wageningen discloses signal processing electronics are configured to monitor for a further disparity between the voltages caused by the presence of the object in the vicinity of the detection coils (¶133 For example, the difference values may be determined and all detection coils 213 for which the difference exceeds a threshold may be identified.) based on the indicated disparity, the indicated further disparity, and a known position of each of the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils, determine a position of the object (¶128 – detection considers associated positions of the values).
Regarding claim 18, Wageningen does not explicitly disclose that the first detection coil and the second detection coil together comprise a detection coil pair; the wireless charger comprises one or more further detection coil pairs; and none of the detection coils are positioned adjacent to the other detection coil in their respective detection coil pair.
Davis discloses that the first detection coil and the second detection coil together comprise a detection coil pair (¶101 – coupling of power between pairs coils);
Davis discloses that the wireless charger comprises one or more further detection coil pairs (FIG. 15; ¶101 – multi-coil charging pad); and
Davis discloses that none of the detection coils are positioned adjacent to the other detection coil in their respective detection coil pair (claim 5 – each coils is adjacent to a coil having the opposite magnetic polarity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Regarding claim 19, Wageningen discloses a kit of parts for forming an object detection system for a wireless electromagnetic induction charger, the wireless electromagnetic induction charger comprising a primary charging coil (103) which, when excited, generates an electromagnetic field for wireless charging (FIG. 2-4).
Wageningen discloses a first detection coil (213), configured for mounting on the wireless electromagnetic induction charger (FIG. 4 illustrates a cross section of a coil arrangement of a power transmitter) such that the generated electromagnetic field induces a first voltage across the first detection coil (¶133 – measurement value for each detection coil 213) .
Wageningen discloses a second detection coil(a different 213 from the first coil), configured for mounting on the wireless electromagnetic induction charger (FIG. 4 illustrates a cross section of a coil arrangement of a power transmitter) such that the generated electromagnetic field induces a second voltage across the second detection coil (¶133 – measurement value for each detection coil 213).
Wageningen discloses signal processing electronics configured to monitor for a disparity between the first voltage and the second voltage caused by a presence of an object in a vicinity of the first or second detection coils (¶133 foreign object detector 219 may e.g. perform a comparison by determining the difference between the actual measurement value for each detection coil 213 and the corresponding reference measurement value; if a subset, or specifically one, of the measurement values results in a high difference measure, this may indicate that a foreign object is indeed present) and, in response to the monitoring indicating a disparity, cause the excitation to cease (¶151 - it is desirable for the system to detect the presence of such objects and e.g. to shut down the power transfer in response).
Wageningen discloses the generated electromagnetic field induces a third voltage across a third detection coil and a fourth voltage across a fourth detection coil (¶133 – measurement value for each detection coil 213),
Wageningen discloses wherein the first, second, third, and forth coils are arranged together to span substantially a full height and width of the primary charging coil (FIG. 3 - the matrix of coils 213 fill the height and width of the transmitter coil 103),
Wageningen discloses the monitoring comprises monitoring a single voltage corresponding to the sum of the induced voltages from the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils (¶144 - The detection may then be performed based on these difference values. For example, an overall difference value may be calculated as e.g. the sum or average of the pair difference values)
Wageningen discloses the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils are arranged in a matrix (FIG. 3 - 213 is illustrated in a matrix),
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth detection coils are arranged within a common plane (¶80 – the detection coils are arranged in a two-dimensional array, thus one of ordinary skill would understand this to disclose being in the same or common plane).
Wageningen does not explicitly teach that the third and fourth detection coils are connected in series with the first and second detection coils, and the detection coils are arranged such that they alternate between opposing polarities both vertically and horizontally.
Davis discloses the third and fourth detection coils are connected in series with the first and second detection coils (¶87 – coils connected in series and arranged coplanar – or in the same (common) plane; FIG. 12 and 15);
the detection coils are arranged such that they alternate between opposing polarities both vertically and horizontally (FIG .12/15 – polarities are alternating; ¶95 – coils are arranged in an alternating checkerboard pattern of coil polarity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the coil arrangement of Davis to Wageningen in order to provide efficient transfer of power (Davis; ¶3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wageningen US20200328616A1 in view of Davis US20130119773A1 in further view of Roehrl WO2019034456A1.
Regarding claim 17, Wageningen is silent as to a calibration system configured to calibrate the first detection coil and the second detection coil to compensate for a difference between one or more parameters of the first detection coil and the second detection coil.
Roehrl discloses a calibration system configured to calibrate the first detection coil and the second detection coil to compensate for a difference between one or more parameters of the first detection coil and the second detection coil (page 7 – “Calibrate vehicle charge termination controller when the energy transfer between the first charge coil and the second charge coil reaches or exceeds a predefined performance. By calibrating all induced voltages of all measuring coils of the Vehicle stop control device on a Reference value set”; third to last paragraph – “The calibration can ensure that the first deviation and the second deviation or the first evaluation and the second evaluation do not drift away over time”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to the teaching of Roehrl to the system of Wageningen in order to improve the inductive charging process (Roehrl; page 2, line 21).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights