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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1 and 20, the negative limitation comprising “wherein the first primary coil and the second primary coils are not adjacent to each other-” lacks written description support.
Regarding the patentable weight given to the negative limitation at issue, the Examiner finds that the cited support in the Specification for the limitation at issue 11/19/2021 does not identify any "[description of] a reason to exclude the relevant imitation." Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.") Here, the Examiner finds that Applicants’ Specification does not "describe a reason to exclude the relevant limitation." (Id.).
Since the Examiner find no basis in the Applicants’ Specification for adding the negative limitation, the Examiner therefore gives no patentable weight to the negative limitation at issue.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 12, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2018/0097403) in view of OK (2021/0127459)
Re Claims 1, 2 and 20; Jung discloses A wireless power transmission apparatus (700), comprising:
a plurality of primary coils (not labeled but shown) organized into at least a first group of primary coils (720) and a second group of primary coils (730); (Fig. 7)
wherein the first group of primary coils is adjacent to the second group of primary coils;(Fig. 7)
at least a first local controller (723 which includes the inverter 723a) associated with at least the first group of primary coils and a second local controller (733) associated with at least the second group of primary coils; (Fig. 7)
a plurality of switches (723d, Fig. 10) capable of individually coupling the first local controller to one or more primary coils of the first group of primary coils and individually coupling the second local controller to one or more primary coils of the second group of primary coils; and (each control unit 723 contains a multiplexer 723d capable of individually coupling the individual controllers to the respective coils)
a master controller (710) configured to operate the plurality of switches to control which one or more primary coils of the first group of primary coils is coupled to the first local controller and which one or more primary coils of the second group of primary coils is coupled to the second local controller. (Par 0136, 178, 179, etc.)
wherein a fist primary coil of the first group of primary coils is coupled to the first local controller and a second primary coil of the second group of primary coils is coupled to the second local controller. (Fig. 7)
Jung discloses wherein the master controller is further configured to: determine that a first primary coil of the plurality of primary coils is providing wireless power to a first wireless power receiving apparatus; and operate the plurality of switches such that one or more adjacent primary coils near the first primary coil remain uncoupled from its respective local controller while the first primary coil is providing the wireless power to the first wireless power receiving apparatus. (Par 129-134)
Jung does not disclose disable, before changing a state of plurality of switches, the first local controller to prevent current from traversing from the first local controller via the plurality of switches while the state of plurality of switches are changed, and enable the first local controller after the state of the plurality of switches has changed to couple the one or more primary coils of the first group of primary coils to the first local controller and wherein the first primary coils and the second primary coil are not adjacent to each other.
In an analogues art, Ok discloses on the cover page shows local controllers (IV1, IV2) providing power via switches (S1-S4) to two groups of coils (WC1-4). The master controller (250) can turn off each inverter before activating the switches (par 30).
wherein the first primary coils (AWCI) and the second primary coil (BWCI) are not adjacent to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have disable the first local controller to reducing switch stress without a freewheeling diode.
Re Claim 4; Jung discloses wherein the plurality of switches includes: a first set of switches configured to individually couple the first local controller to one primary coil of the first group of primary coils; and a second set of switches configured to individually couple the second local controller to one primary coil of the second group of primary coils. (the switches shown in Fig. 14 is directed to the detail of 720 and 730)
Re Claims 12 and 29; Jung discloses wherein the master controller is further configured to: operate the plurality of switches to such that each of the plurality of primary coils are coupled to a respective local controller according to a pattern that prevents adjacent primary coils from being coupled at the same time. (Par 0130)
Re Claim 15; Jung discloses further comprising: a charging pad on which multiple wireless power receiving apparatuses may be placed, wherein the plurality of primary coils is arranged in an overlapping pattern that is distributed among multiple layers of the charging pad. (Fig. 9)
Re Claim 19; Jung discloses wherein the plurality of switches comprise relays which are remotely controlled switches managed by the master controller. (Fig. 7)
Re Claim 21; Jung discloses wherein the plurality of primary coils (720) are organized into at least a first group of primary coils that can be individually coupled to a first local controller (720) via a first subset of the plurality of switches (the switches are shown in Fig. 10) and a second group of primary coils (730) that can be individually coupled to a second local controller via a second subset of the plurality of switches (730) (Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 5-10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23-26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of OK and further in view of Jung et al (US 2013/0015719.Hereinafter Jung719).
Re Claim 5; Jung discloses further comprising: a plurality of local controllers including at least the first local controller and the second local controller, wherein at least the first local controller includes: a communication unit capable of receiving a communication from a first wireless power receiving apparatus; (Par 0106) a control unit configured to manage operation of a driver (723a) in response to receiving the communication from the first wireless power receiving apparatus; and the driver configured to generate an electrical output to the first primary coil when the first primary coil is coupled to the first local controller via the plurality of switches. (Fig. 7 and 10 Par 106).
Jung does not disclose a communication unit capable of receiving a communication from a first wireless power receiving apparatus via a first primary coil when the first wireless power receiving apparatus is in proximity to the first primary coil and when the first local controller is coupled to the first primary coil;
However, Jung719 discloses a communication unit capable of receiving a communication from a first wireless power receiving apparatus via a first primary coil when the first wireless power receiving apparatus is in proximity to the first primary coil and when the first local controller is coupled to the first primary coil; Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used the transmitter coils to perform communication in order to reduce the number of components used in the construction of the circuits in order to save cost.
Re Claims 6 and 23; Jung disclosure has been discussed above.
Jung does not disclose wherein the first local controller is configured to: determine a status signal to send to the master controller, wherein the status signal is based, at least in part, on the communication from the first wireless power receiving apparatus, a wireless power transfer status, the electrical output being generated to the first primary coil, a fault condition associated with charging the first wireless power receiving apparatus, or any combination thereof; and send the status signal to the master controller.
However, Jung719 discloses wherein the first local controller (123) is configured to: determine a status signal to send to the master controller (122), wherein the status signal (object detector) is based, at least in part, on the communication from the first wireless power receiving apparatus, a wireless power transfer status, the electrical output being generated to the first primary coil, a fault condition associated with charging the first wireless power receiving apparatus, or any combination thereof; and send the status signal to the master controller (based in part of the object detector, Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have detected the state of the receiver, motivated by the desire to effective regulate the power transferred to the load so that the load demand is met.
Re Claims 7 and 24; Jung719 discloses wherein the master controller is further configured to: determine that the first primary coil is not providing wireless power to the first wireless power receiving apparatus based, at least in part, on the status signal; and operate the plurality of switches to couple the first local controller to one or more other primary coils of the first group of primary coils. Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039 when an object has been detected and verified, the switches are controlled to provide power)
Re Claims 8 and 25; Jung719 wherein the master controller is further configured to: determine that the first primary coil is providing wireless power to the first wireless power receiving apparatus based, at least in part, on the status signal; and prevent the plurality of switches from uncoupling the first local controller from the first primary coil while the status signal indicates that the first primary coil is providing wireless power to the first wireless power receiving apparatus. (Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039, when the ID is verified and accepted, the switches are prevented from uncoupling the first controller from the coil in order to provide power)
Re Claims 9 and 26; Jung719 wherein the master controller is further configured to: prevent the plurality of switches from coupling one or more adjacent primary coils near the first primary coil to its respective local controller while the status signal indicates that the first primary coil is providing the wireless power to the first wireless power receiving apparatus. (Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039, when the ID is verified and accepted, the switches are prevented from uncoupling the first controller from the coil in order to provide power)
Re Claims 10 and 27; Jung719 discloses wherein the master controller is further configured to: cause the plurality of switches to sequentially couple primary coils of the first group of primary coils to the first local controller; and or each primary coil of the first group of primary coils, receive a status signal from the first local controller, the status signal indicating whether the first local controller detects a first wireless power receiving apparatus at the primary coil that presently coupled to the first local controller. (Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039)
Re Claim 13; Jung719 discloses wherein each group of primary coils includes at least two primary coils (111 and 112) that can selectively be coupled to a local controller (123), and wherein each group of primary coils is coupled to the local controller for the group via at least one switch (shown but not labelled). (Fig. 1)
Re Claim 14; the combination of Jung’s disclose has been discussed above. The combination does not disclose wherein the first group of primary coils includes three primary coils that can selectively be coupled to the first local controller via two relays.
However, it was known to coupled a relay to a coil and it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing to have coupled the relay to the primary coils in order to adequately transmit the power.
Re Claim 17; Jung disclosure has been disclosed above.
Jung does not disclose wherein the first local controller is configured cause at least a first primary coil of the first group of primary coils to transmit wireless power to a first wireless power receiving apparatus in response to a communication from the first wireless power receiving apparatus via the first primary coil when the first wireless power receiving apparatus is in proximity to the first primary coil and when the first local controller is coupled to the first primary coil; and wherein the second local controller is configured cause at least a second primary coil of the second group of primary coils to transmit wireless power to a second wireless power receiving apparatus in response to a communication from the second wireless power receiving apparatus via the second primary coil when the second wireless power receiving apparatus is in proximity to the second primary coil and when the second local controller is coupled to the second primary coil.
However, Jung719 discloses wherein the first local controller is configured cause at least a primary coil to transmit wireless power to a first wireless power receiving apparatus in response to a communication from the first wireless power receiving apparatus via the first primary coil when the first wireless power receiving apparatus is in proximity to the first primary coil and when the first local controller is coupled to the first primary coil. Fig. 1, Par 0037-0039)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have detected the present of the receiver for both the first and second transmitter, motivated by the desire to effectively regulate the power transferred to the load so that the load demand is met.
Re Claim 18; Jung discloses wherein the first primary coil and the second primary coil are not adjacent to each other, and wherein the first primary coil and the second primary coil are configured to concurrently transmit wireless power to the first wireless power receiving apparatus and the second wireless power receiving apparatus, respectively. (Fig. 16)
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lin (US 2018/0114634).
Re Claim 16; Jung disclosure has been discussed above.
Jung does not disclose wherein at least a subset of the plurality of primary coils are constructed from graphene.
However, Lin discloses the metal coil 12 is made of graphene materials. The maximum current density and tensile strength (TS) of the graphene is 100 times of that of the copper. The thermal conductivity of the graphene is 10 times of that of the copper. The mean free path of the graphene is 25 times of that of the copper. Therefore, with the same power supply efficiency, the metal coil 12 made of the graphene is light and thin. As a result, the thickness of the wireless charging structure 1 or 4 is in a range of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used a coil constructed from graphene based on the benefit by Lin in order to maximize power transfer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argue that “Jung does not disclose “a plurality of primary coils organized into at least a first group of primary coils and a second group of primary coils, wherein the first group of primary coils is adjacent to the second group of primary coils, … wherein a first primary coil of the first group of primary coils is coupled to the first local controller and a second primary coils of the firs group is of primary coils is coupled to the second local controller, wherein the first primary coil and the second primary coils are not adjacent to each other”, thus Jung therefore cannot teach a first coil in the first group of primary and a second coil of a second group of primary coils.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagree, Jung discloses a first group of primary coils (720) and a second group of primary coils (730) (Fig. 7) wherein the first group of primary coils are adjacent to the second group of primary coils.
What Jung again fails to show is the detail arrangement of the coils arrangement in the first group of primary coils and a second group of primary coils based on the placement of the individual coils relative to each other.
The examiner relies of OK to show the detail arrangement of a first group of primary coils and a second group of primary coils where the first group is adjacent to the second group and the first primary coil in the first group is not adjacent to the primary coil of the second group and also labeled the first primary coil and the second primary coil to articulate that they are not adjacent to each other.
Regarding Applicant’s argument OK and Jung made in a previous response of June 30, 2025, the Examiner maintains his response for that argument.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended part of the claim means there are multiple switches ("plurality of switches") that are used to connect different sets of primary coils ("first group of primary coils" and "second group of primary coils") to their respective local controllers ("first local controller" and "second local controller"). Essentially, these switches allow for dynamic configuration, enabling the system to choose which specific coils are activated and driven by which controller at any given time.
"Disable, before changing a state of plurality of switches, the first local controller to prevent current from traversing from the first local controller via the plurality of switches while the state of plurality of switches are changed": This part emphasizes a crucial safety and operational step. Before you change the switch configuration (which coils are connected to which controller), the power source (the first local controller) must be disabled. This prevents current from flowing through the switches during the transition. If the current were flowing while the switch states are being changed, it could lead to arcing, short circuits, or damage to the switches or other components.
"Enable the first local controller after the state of the plurality of switches has changed to couple the one or more primary coils of the first group of primary coils to the first local controller": Once the switches are in their new configuration, and the desired coils are connected to the first local controller, the power is re-enabled.
In essence, the claim describes an obvious controlled switching process for primary coils. It ensures that disabling the controller before switching is an obvious and necessary safety and operational measure, not a limitation in the sense of a drawback.
Working with live circuits carries risks of electrocution, arcing, and short circuits. Disabling the power removes this risk during the critical switching operation. Failing to turn off the main switch before operating other switches can lead to shorting out tools, burning wires, or receiving electrical shocks.
Changing switch states while current is flowing can cause arcing between contacts, potentially damaging the switches and reducing their lifespan.
Coils are inductors, which resist changes in current. Disabling the power mitigates the potential for high voltage spikes or other undesirable transients that can occur when suddenly changing connections to inductive loads.
Therefore, disabling the local controller before changing the switches is a best practice in electrical engineering, not a weakness of the system itself. It's a standard procedure to ensure safe and reliable operation of electrical circuits involving switching and inductive components.
OK However, discloses the inverter, mentioned, can be controlled by a local controller. In the context of induction heating, an inverter is typically part of the power unit, which generates high-frequency AC power for the induction coil. A local controller monitors parameters and provides switching pulses to the inverter. Therefore, disabling the local controller could effectively "turn off" the inverter by preventing it from generating the necessary pulses.
The concept of turning off the inverter to protect the semiconductor switch, as described in the excerpt, aligns with the broader idea of safety and component protection in electrical systems, which supports the claim's limitation. Disabling the local controller ensures that the inverter, and thus the switches, are de-energized during the change in switch states, similar to how disabling the power supply before working on switches is recommended.
Thus, the combination teaches the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
09/26/2025
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836