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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims have been amended to include the limitations of claim 8. The RCE submission does not include any arguments against the art rejection of claim 8 citing Choi (US 2020/0161906). The Advisory Action noted that the penultimate wherein clause would overcome the current rejection – the Examiner did not take into account that this clause was already rejected in claim 8 (the Applicants’ citation for support for the amendment does not mention claim 8). The Examiner notes that Choi appears to only teach that the inductor (not the capacitor) is printed on the insulating film (par 81). It is for this reason only that Choi is withdrawn from the combination.
The Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The Applicants’ repeated mischaracterization of the Hall abstract does not show any error in relying on a specific embodiment within the reference (Remarks, pages 7-8). Hall’s abstract is directed to the many (i.e. “array”) resonators of the transmitter (as in figure 63). It does not refer to a wired connection between the transmitter, relay(s) and receiver (see fig 74). A wired connection between these physically separated (and galvanically isolated) resonators would defeat the entire purpose of the system being wireless. The abstract’s “array” refers to the transmitter only (fig 63), not all resonators in the entire system.
Furthermore, a patent application can have more than one embodiment. One sentence in the abstract does not mean that every disclosed embodiment must be wired. The reference must be considered as a whole, not with one sentence overruling pages of disclosure. The Applicants have not cited to any disclosure in the Hall Detailed Description of figure 74 (i.e. the embodiment actually cited in the art rejection) that explains how the illustrated resonators must be wired.
Next, the Applicants contend that Skinner does not disclose the impedance meter and analyzer. The Applicants contend that Ohm’s Law “ignores the specific structural and functional requirements of an instrument capable of impedance analysis” (Remarks, page 8, middle, emphasis added). In response, the Examiner notes that the Applicants do not cite to any evidence to support this position. The specification only names these components and does not include any explanation for their structure or what intended functionality (aside from what can be inferred from their names: meter, analyzer). The Applicants contend that their impedance meter/analyzer would complete the functionality of “analyzing the impedance presented by the sensor through the resonator array to detect resonance-related changes.” (Remarks, page 8). No such language appears in the claim. Claim 1 recites “the detector is configured to receive signals from the sensor”. This is exactly what Skinner does. The claim language (see “the detector” underlined above) clearly indicates that the Applicants intend for the claim to refer to the detector (broadly) as configured to receive signals from the sensor. The claim is completely silent as to any underlying structure/functionality of the analyzer (a component within the detector).
During prosecution, the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude.” See, e.g. Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(en banc). MPEP §2173.02. It is the Applicants’ burden to amend the claim to explicitly define what the impedance meter/analyzer are and what functionality they carry out to distinguish over the prior art.
If the skilled artisan would understand the disclosed impedance meter/analyzer as including specific structure and functionality, then it would not be new matter to add these descriptions to the specification (external evidence would be required to support such an interpretation).
The Applicants argue that the combination with Ramond and Muralt is based on impermissible hindsight (Remarks, page 8). The Applicants contend that “the prior art does not suggest or enable the integration into a single dielectric [] that simultaneously provides both pressure and temperature sensing.” (Id.). First, Skinner discloses its sensors can include pressure and temperature (par 29). Thus, the simultaneous sensing is taught by the prior art. Second, claim 1 recites “the sensor comprising a dielectric with both pyro-electric and polymers and piezo-electric polymers” and that the “capacitor comprises the dielectric material”. The claim does not recite any manner in which these two polymers are integrated. Skinner discloses the need to sense two parameters (pressure, temperature) – Ramond and Muralt teach that these parameters can be sensed with capacitors that comprise the necessary polymers. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered that the sensor/capacitor “comprises” both types of polymers. If the claim language is to remain broad, then the burden of proof to support the necessary disclosure in the prior art and the combination of references is relatively low.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicants contend that the subject matter of claim 8 (the insulating film) gives the resonator survivability in the high voltage environment (Remarks, page 8, bottom). This may be the intent, but the claim is still written broadly. The HV environment is not claimed – the transformer is an intended use limitation. Survivability would be provided by specific construction (materials, thickness, etc.), not just naming layers. Generally making circuits smaller (printing them on a film) would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. The Skinner/Hall resonator array is not affecting by how big/small their parts are.
The Applicants present six numbered arguments regarding the independent claims. These are treated in turn.
“First” (Remarks, page 10, top), the transformer is still an intended use limitation. This wherein clause simply clarifies the intended use “device” as a “transformer”. The claim does not incorporate the structure of the transformer into the claim. For example, the Applicants state that Skinner’s downhole equipment is “not LC circuits printed on an insulating film inside transformer insulation” (Remarks, pages 10-11, bridging sentence, emphasis added). The underlined demonstrates the difference between mentioning where the sensor arrangement is intended to be used versus actually integrating specific parts of the sensor arrangement into the transformer. Adding a wherein clause to the body of the claim to rename the intended use element does not overcome the intended use analysis. The claim does not recite “a transformer” (or similar) as a distinct claimed limitation with its own introductory paragraph and then define its construction to provide antecedent basis for any parts into which the sensor is “integrated”. The preamble ends with “a sensor arrangement comprising” and the body of the claim is directed entirely to this sensor arrangement. The HV electrical device (whether a transformer or something else) is an intended use limitation.
“Second” (Remarks, page 10, bottom), the cited limitation does provide the broad basis for how the Applicants’ sensor arrangement would be survivable in certain situations. The Examiner’s response is that it is not specific enough. The Applicants may consider the following analogy: a piece of glass forms the basis for survivability of a submersible vessel (one with viewing windows). There is a big difference between descending to 10 feet, 1000 feet and or 10000 feet. The extreme pressure at great depths require specific structural changes to the glass. Simply naming “glass” is not sufficient to define the survivability at a large depths. Similarly, the Applicants are only broadly naming the dielectric film without offering any specifics about how it must be specifically constructed to provide survivability in a 1kV transformer (as opposed to survivability near a 1v transformer, for example).
“Third” (Remarks, page 11, top), Hall’s resonators are wirelessly coupled – not wired. The Applicants’ continued reliance on a misinterpretation of one abstract sentence does not overcome the art rejection. Hall explicitly discloses a “chain of three or more LC circuits that are each galvanically isolated form the others” and that they are “arranged coaxially and equidistant along an axis”. Sufficient citations to Hall’s disclosure have been provided to support this. The insulating film is taught by Baarman (US 2011/0259960; fig 23; par 126). The HV and LV sides of the transformer are not claimed.
“Fourth” (Remarks, page 11, bottom), in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Skinner disclose the LC array and sensors (pressure and temperature). Ramond and Muralt teach that these sensors can be built into the capacitance (which Skinner already has). The combination does not rely on “a generic external sensor simply placed near a resonator” – it relies on a specifically named sensor (pressure, temperature) near a resonator that is then modified to be inside the resonator. Skinner’s capacitor obviously has a dielectric layer. Ramond and Muralt teach that this dielectric can be a pressure sensor and temperature sensor. As the Skinner/Hall resonator only has one capacitor (LC means one inductor and one capacitor), the skilled artisan would have understood that both polymers are inside the same capacitor. The claim does not otherwise recite how this is done in any way to distinguish over the general ability of the skilled artisan to combine polymers to achieve the two sensing functionalities that are already disclosed as desired by the primary reference (Skinner).
“Fifth” (Remarks, page 12, middle), the Applicants’ comments are directed to unclaimed subject matter. The impedance meter and analyzer are only mentioned once in the specification and generically named in the claims. There is no evidence supporting the Applicants’ conclusion that the claimed analyzer must “characterize[] complex impedance of an integrated sensor capacitor via multiple inductive stages inside a transformer.” (Id.). And the transformer is not distinctly claimed; it is an intended use limitation. The comments, above, regarding the meter/analyzer are incorporated here as well.
Regarding the arguments against Widmer, the Applicants are confusing the location of the Widmer “sense coil”. This sense coil is within the transmitter (corresponding to the combination’s detector) – it is not part of the receiver (corresponding to the combination’s sensor). Just because Widmer uses the term “sense coil” does not mean that it must be applied to the claimed “sensor” (receiver). Within the combination, the Widmer impedance meter/analyzer are “galvanically isolated” from the combination’s sensor because they are in the transmitter and receiver, respectively.
“Sixth” (Remarks, pages 12-13), the Examiner disagrees with the Applicants’ characterization that the amendment does “both”. Regarding the transformer, this wherein clause simply renames the intended use device of the preamble. That the wherein clause is in the body is irrelevant. The body of the claim does not set forth the structural components of the transformer. And the preamble still ends with “a sensor arrangement comprising”. The “insulating and arcing concerns” are not fully realized by only generically naming an insulating film, as discussed above. More specific structural features would be required.
The same arguments apply to claims 13 and 15.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites a “fixed” resonance frequency tuned to the “natural” sensor frequency . The claim makes no mention of sensed values causing a change in the sensor frequency that must be compensated for which active adjustments made in the transmitter.
The only mention of tuning in claim 2 is in the passive phrase, “which is tuned”. This is descriptive language of the “fixed natural frequency” – it is not a structural limitation defining a tuning circuit (variable L or C in the transmitter or any type of controller to change the reactance/tuning value). This passive language indicates an external effect on the resonator – it does not recite active control. The combination of references teaches the structure of claim 1 and, therefore, also discloses any passive effects on the fixed natural frequency. The only narrowing limitation in claim 2 is the defined frequency range at the end.
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 1-2, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (US 2017/0167250) in view of Hall (US 2010/0237709), Ramond (US 2011/0314328), Muralt (“Pyroelectricity”, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2005, pages 441-448) and Baarman (US 2011/0259960). Alternatively, the claims are unpatentable over Hall in view of Skinner, Ramond, Muralt and Baarman.
With respect to claim 1, Skinner discloses a HV electrical device (intended use – the preamble clearly indicates that the body of the claim defines the sensor arrangement), comprising a sensor arrangement (fig 2; par 19-30) comprising:
a sensor (216; par 2, 29) of the electrical device (par 29 lists various properties);
a detector (par 28, “the current in the first resonator 202 can be detected and modulations in the current can be associated with data”) comprising an impedance meter (par 28, current is detected – through Ohm’s Law, impedance is inversely proportional to current), the impedance meter comprising an impedance analyser (par 28; “and modulations in the current can be associated with data” – this association indicates that the metered current is analyzed) configured to receive signals from the sensor;
an electrical power source (208); and
a resonator array (202, 210 – this makes a 2x1 array) comprising an array of two LC circuits (the loop provides the inductance/L, see par 19-20, capacitors 206/214 provide the C) arranged equidistantly (there are only two – so they are the same distance from each other) and galvanically isolated (there is no wired connection) from each other along a transfer path comprising axis (there is a line between the center of the circles of the two resonators) that is orthogonal to respective planes of the LC circuits (see fig 2) that are arranged coaxially stacked on-top of each other (obvious to turn Skinner “Sideways” to power transfer is up/down and the resonators are “stacked”) between the sensor and the detector and configured to wirelessly transfer power to the sensor from the electrical power source (par 21, 27) and to wirelessly transfer the sensor signals from the sensor to the detector (par 28);
wherein the sensor is integrated with the resonator array (see fig 2); and
wherein the sensor is arranged at a high electrical potential and the detector is arranged at a low electric potential relative to the high electric potential (this wherein clause is descriptive of where the sensor/detector are located – not any structure or functionality that the resonators are or carry out – the intended environment in which the sensor arrangement is to operate does not further limit the structure of the sensor arrangement itself; see additional comments below),
wherein the sensor and the detector are separated by an electrical potential different of at least 1kV (the Skinner sensor/detector are wirelessly coupled – this clearly indicates a separation by an electrical potential. The potential the wherein clause is reciting is directed to a voltage created by an unclaimed electronic device. Physically placing the Skinner sensor arrangement next to a 1kV device, so that the Skinner sensor/detector are near different voltage potentials, including those of 1kV, is an obvious physical relocation that is not a modification of the reference’s structure), and
wherein the impedance analyzer is inductively coupled to the sensor via the resonator array (fig 2 – the sensor is on one side of the array, the impedance detector [and its analyzer] are on the other – they are wirelessly coupled),
wherein the (intended use) electrical device is a transformer (not further limiting to the body of the claim that defines the sensor arrangement).
The limitation in the preamble of “high voltage (HV) electrical device” is an intended use limitation. This device does not breathe life into the body of the claim. “The body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” MPEP §2111.02(II).
The preamble ends with “a sensor arrangement comprising” and all limitations, within the body of the claim, are directed to structural components of this sensor arrangement (sensor, detector, source, resonator array). There are no structural limitations in the body of the claim regarding the HV device. The claim only mentions electrical effects of the HV device in several wherein clauses that define the sensor arrangement. This language does not overcome the intended use analysis.
The amended wherein clause clarifying that the HV electrical device is a “transformer” does not overcome this analysis. This wherein clause does not incorporate any structural limitations of the transformer into the body of the claim. The wherein clause has the same lack of patentable weight as it would if it were in the preamble.
Skinner discloses a resonator array that sends wireless power from a source to an integrated sensor and wireless data in the other direction. Figure 2 does not show a “detector”, but the quoted language of paragraph 28 indicates that one is present. Skinner discloses the sensing of transmitter current and the demodulation of encoded data. This renders obvious the limitation of a “detector”. Skinner’s LC circuits produce a transfer path that is arranged along the line connecting the axis of the two circles. This orientation also makes Skinner’s LC circuits “coaxial”. When Skinner’s apparatus is turned sideways, the resonators are still “stacked” (one on top of the other).
Skinner’s detector meters (measures) current. Through Ohm’s Law (V=IR), impedance (which includes resistance) is inversely proportional to current. Thus, Skinner’s current meter is obviously an impedance meter. The claim only broadly names the meter (by what it measures) and does not include any narrowing structure (even though the Applicants have been put on notice that it is art limitation mapped to Skinner’s current sensor). The specification offers no additional descriptions to help the public understand what subject matter the Applicants intend to cover with “impedance meter”. Nor have the Applicants provided any clarifying comments to assist the public in understanding the scope over which the Applicants intend to seek patent protection with “impedance meter”.
The output of the Skinner current sensor is then demodulated to extract data. This demodulation is an “impedance analyser”. Similarly to the meter, the claim and specification only broadly name the analyser and does not include any narrowing structure to indicate what it is in any manner that distinguishes over Skinner’s demodulator (even though the Applicants have been put on notice that it is art limitation mapped to this demodulator). Thus, Skinner discloses both an impedance meter and impedance analyser. For the purpose of the art rejection, the analyzer is interpreted as part of the meter – drawing a box around the two components and calling them a “meter” is not a modification of the prior art.
The Applicants, through multiple replies, do not effectively dispute this analysis; thus, it is presumed to be correct. The Applicants disagree in their most recent reply, but they do not explain or point to any structural differences that are present between the claim language and Skinner’s disclosure. If an impedance meter is not what Skinner is disclosing, then the Applicants should be able to cite to evidence supporting how a skilled artisan would have interpreted this limitation.
As the Skinner sensor and detector are on opposite sides of the inductive array, the reference teaches the impedance meter and analyzer (on the detector side) are “inductively coupled” (through the resonator array) to the sensor – there is no wired connection between the sensor and the meter/analyzer.
Skinner discloses the sensor and detector – moving them to different locations to “arrange” them next to other (unclaimed) structure is not a modification of the prior art. The Skinner sensor arrangement can be physically moved next to a “HV electrical device” or “transformer”, including one that operates with a 1kV potential, without modifications. The wherein clauses at the end of claim 1 recite passive voice language to indicate where the components “are arranged” and what they “are separated by”. The claim does not recite structural features of the sensor arrangement itself to survive such “significant new problems” (see Remarks, 10/23/25, page 9, lists the problems of “insulation, electrical arcing, and component spacing”). The amended language of printing the resonator array on an electrically insulating film is not sufficient to introduce the specific structure required for survivability in the intended use environment. If the Applicants’ sensor arrangement includes generic components able to operate in this 1kV environment, then it is reasonable to conclude that Skinner’s generic components can safely operate in the same location.
The Skinner sensor arrangement is not disclosed as being used within a 1kV device. But creating or modifying some unclaimed device to have a 1kV potential, and then placing the Skinner sensor arrangement there, is not a modification of Skinner. The “1kV” limitation defines the environment in which the sensor arrangement is intended to be placed, but it does not further narrow the structure of the sensor arrangement itself.
Further, the wherein clauses use the passive voice: is arranged, are separated. This language is descriptive of effects that happen to the sensor and detector – they are not structural or distinct functional limitations that clearly and unambiguously define (for the public) what the sensor and detector are. Since Skinner (alone or in combination with the other references, see below) teaches the claimed structure of the sensor and detector, it would be obvious that it could be physically moved to experience (“is arranged”) the claimed electric potentials.
Skinner discloses two LC circuits, but does not expressly disclose at least three of them. Hall discloses an HV electrical device comprising an arrangement (fig 6, 74, 76; par 163, 185-192, 662-666) comprising:
a load (7402),
an electrical power source (7400), and
a resonator array comprises at least three LC circuits (fig 74 and 76, items 7404, 7406, 7408; each LC circuit is shown in fig 6a-b and described in paragraph 185 and 188-192) arranged equidistantly and galvanically isolated from each other along a transfer path comprising an axis that is orthogonal to respective planes of the at least three LC circuits (see fig 74, 76 and explanation below) that are arranged coaxially stacked on-top of each other (see fig 74, 76) between a transmitter and receiver and configured to wirelessly transfer power to the load from the electrical power source (par 662-663).
Hall discloses that it was known, prior to the Applicants earliest priority date, to use LC resonator circuits in between the transmitter and receiver to extend the distance over which power can be transferred (par 664, first sentence) or to increase efficiency when transmitter and receiver are not properly aligned (par 663).
Hall discloses that its resonators can be arranged vertically (see fig 74-76) or horizontally (see 7404 in figure 75). This indicates that Hall was aware of the difference between the transfer path being “orthogonal” to the LC plane or parallel to it. Hall discloses its three resonators have planes orthogonal to the path of wireless power transfer.
The combination (Skinner and Hall) teaches that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to place another LC resonator in between the two already disclosed by Skinner. Adding a resonator can be for increased range or to correct for some misalignment (Hall par 663, 664). This combination does not affect the Skinner power source, detector or sensor. These elements are not required to be taught by Hall as well.
Skinner and Hall are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely wireless power transfer with LC resonators. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Skinner to include an LC repeater, as taught by Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and/or extend the distance over which power/data can be transferred (Hall par 663-664).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the resonator array of Hall with the detector and sensor of Skinner. The motivation for doing so would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP §2143(A). The prior art includes each element, although not in a single reference. The only different between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of an actual combination of the elements in a single reference. The skilled artisan could have combined the elements by known methods – those being inserting the Skinner detector into the Hall transmitter (7400) and the sensor into the receiver (7402). In this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it did separately (Hall continues to send power and data – Skinner continues to send power and data). The skilled artisan would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both references use LC circuits to create a wireless transfer path. Placing a “sensor” at the receiver does not change how the wireless power transfer path operates. Placing a “detector” at the transmitter also does not change how the wireless power transfer path operates. As in Skinner, Hall’s three+ resonator array can be turned sideways so that power transfer is up/down and the resonators become “stacked”.
Skinner discloses both an LC resonator and the sensor for sensing pressure (par 2, 29) and temperature (par 29), but does not expressly disclose the sensor comprises the capacitor of the LC resonator array, a dielectric with piezo-electric or pyro-electric polymers within the capacitor of the LC resonator circuit, or that the resonator array is printed on film.
Ramond discloses a sensor of an electrical device comprising a dielectric with piezo-electric polymers, the dielectric material is sensitive to the property of the electrical device, the property being pressure (par 59). In the combination, Ramond’s pressure sensor would be C of the Skinner LC circuit of the resonator array. The claim only broadly recites that the capacitor comprises the pressure-related polymer – no specific details about how it is constructed are provided to indicate that it is any different than the skilled artisan’s application of one reference’s teaching to another.
Skinner and Ramond are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely pressure sensors. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Skinner sensor to measure pressure by using a pressure-sensitive capacitor, as taught by Ramond. The motivation for doing so would have been to accomplish both Skinner functions (sensing and communication) in one device. Skinner discloses that the sensed values are communicated by impedance modulation. Ramond teaches that this can be done with one component – a sensor that changes its impedance in response to sensed pressure.
Muralt discloses a capacitor that comprises a dielectric material that comprises a pyro-electric polymer responsive to the property being temperature (“introduction”, “Fundamentals”, figure 1, Table 1). Muralt discloses that capacitors are known to include poly-electric materials to convert sensed temperature into voltage (see at least first sentence under “Fundamentals”). As in the pressure-based polymer, the claim only broadly recites that the capacitor comprises the temperature-related polymer – no specific details about how it is constructed are provided to indicate that it is any different than the skilled artisan’s application of one reference’s teaching to another.
The combination (Skinner, Ramond) and Muralt are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely capacitor-based sensors. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination’s capacitor to include a pyro-electric polymer, as taught by Muralt. The motivation for doing so would have been to satisfy Skinner’s requirement for temperature sensing. Skinner discloses a temperature sensor, but does not expressly disclose how it would measure temperature. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered the relevant prior art to determine suitable sensors to use with the Skinner system.
Thus, the combination teaches the Skinner receiver/sensor LC resonator would comprise polymers for both pressure sensing (piezo-electric polymer) and temperature sensing (pyro-electric polymer). No secondary evidence has been presented against the obviousness of applying two known capacitive dielectric polymers to the Skinner resonator capacitance.
Baarman (fig 23; par 126) discloses that it is known to print an LC resonant circuit (422, 424) on an electrically insulating film that comprise a dielectric material (430, 434). The terms “insulating” and “dielectric” are synonymous. The dielectric material is the insulating film, and vice versa. Baarman’s LC circuit is printed onto a non-conductive substrate. The term “non-conductive” refers to insulating – the substrate is a film/material.
The combination (Skinner/Hall) and Baarman are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely LC resonator circuits. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination’s resonator to be printed onto a film/dielectric, as taught by Baarman. The motivation for doing so would have been the obviousness of miniaturization and the general trend, in electrical engineering, of making circuits smaller.
Should the Applicants argue that Skinner’s LC resonator is intended for downhole applications and could not obviously be miniaturized, the Examiner notes that the art rejection can also rely on Hall as the primary reference (Hall is not required to be used in such large-scale locations).
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Skinner discloses the resonator array has a fixed natural frequency (see equations in paragraph 20) which is tuned to a natural frequency of the sensor (par 28 indicates that the Skinner sensor has impedance – impedance is also well known and the reference is not required to mention it multiple times for it to exist). Skinner discloses that the L and C of both resonators can be selected as desired (par 20) and that the sensor (216) has a variable impedance that changes the resonance (par 28). This variable sensor impedance is also supported by the combination with Ramond and Muralt.
Skinner also discloses that its sensor is for sensing pressure (par 2, 29), and, its combination with Ramond, teaches the sensor impedance is dependent on the property of the environment. Ramond discloses a sensor with a variable impedance that is dependent on the parameter it is sensing (pressure; par 59). Skinner discloses that the sensed values are communicated by impedance modulation. Ramond teaches that this can be done with one component – a sensor that changes its impedance in response to sensed pressure. Thus, the combination’s pressure-dependent capacitance sets the natural frequency of the sensor.
Regarding the frequency range, the specific frequencies used in the Skinner assembly are a result effective variable. MPEP §2144.05. Skinner provides the equation necessary to determine the L and C values necessary to produce any desired frequency. Should the user desire a “range of 10 kHz to 100 MHz”, Skinner clearly provides the teaching necessary to create it.
With the exception of the frequency limitation (last wherein clause), the remaining limitations of claims 2 and 16 are descriptive of the effects of the sensor on frequency. These other wherein clauses do not include any narrowing structural or functional limitations. Support for this can be found in the passive language used in the claims: the resonator array “has” a frequency which “is tuned”. If the claim 1/15 resonators need additional structure to achieve this benefit/effect, then the Applicants are invited to further amend claims 2/16 to more clearly define those narrowing structural limitations.
With respect to claim 9, Skinner discloses the resonator array comprises a plurality of flat LC circuits (two are shown in figure 2) co-axially arranged a predetermined distance (D) from each other (see fig 3, 4 or 6).
With respect to claim 10, Skinner discloses the resonator array comprises a plurality of co-planar flat LC circuits arranged side by side (fig 6). Skinner discloses two drilling string members (608) that include a resonator (610, 612) at their ends. When the string members are placed side by side, the resonators will also be side by side and co-planar as claimed.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites that the resonator array is defined as comprises an array of LC circuits as “configured to” transfer power and data. The configuration of each LC circuit to transfer power/data is given by its LC structure (not the relative placements of a plurality of LC circuits). The claim is directed to structure (not the functionality of actually transmitting power/data) – therefore, moving the LC resonators (to be side by side) does not affect their individual structure.
With respect to claim 11, Skinner discloses the property of the HV environment is any in the group of properties consisting of (see par 29 for the list) temperature, pressure, acceleration, moisture, acidity and oxygen level.
With respect to claim 13, Skinner, Hall, Ramond, Muralt and Baarman combine (in two alternatives) to disclose the apparatus necessary to carry out the method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. Like in claim 1, claim 13 only broadly uses wherein clauses with passive language to describe where they intend for the method to be carried out. There are no functional (or structural) limitations in the body of the claim that define the HV electrical device (or its transformer) to overcome the intended use analysis. Describing the environment in which the method of detecting a measured property is carried out (near some undefined and unclaimed 1kV device) does not further limit the method steps of the claim. All other interpretations of claim 1 are applicable to claim 15.
With respect to claims 15-16, Skinner, Hall, Ramond, Muralt and Baarman combine (in two alternatives) to disclose the sensor arrangement, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 1-2, respectively. Claim 15 repeats the limitations of claim 1, except that it excludes the voltage source. The same analysis presented with respect to claim 1 are applicable to claim 15.
With respect to claim 19, Hall discloses the resonator array comprises a plurality of flat LC circuits co-axially arranged a predetermined distance from each other or a plurality of co-planar flat LC circuits arranged side by side (fig 74, 76).
With respect to claim 21, Skinner discloses its sensor arrangement is autonomous (no human intervention is required to achieve the functionality). Therefore, Skinner discloses the computer program product comprising computer-executable components for causing a controller to perform the method of claim 13, wherein the computer-executable components are run on processing circuitry comprised in the controller.
With respect to claim 22, the combination discloses the structure of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the expected voltage levels. Scaling the prior art, so it can carry more or less voltage, would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). Scaling would not require a modification of how the prior art functions (just changing components so they can withstand more/less voltage). Thus, selecting components for the Skinner/Hall system so that its source operates at voltages that are greater than or equal to 1kV would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 23, Skinner and Hall disclose the LC resonator array. Since the references disclose the limited structure that defines the resonators, it would have been obvious that the combination provides the same benefit of being “configured to only wirelessly transfer power to the sensor from the electrical power source”. There are no wires between the Skinner resonators (or the Hall resonators). The presence of wires from the source to the first resonator or from the last resonator to the load/sensor are not prohibited by the claim language.
Claims 1-2, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner in view of Hall, Widmer (US 2016/0187519), Ramond, Muralt and Baarman. Alternatively, the claims are unpatentable over Hall in view of Skinner, Widmer, Ramond, Muralt and Baarman. This is an alternative rejection in response to the Applicants’ remarks that Skinner does not disclose the impedance meter/analyser.
Skinner, Hall, Ramond, Muralt and Baarman (in two possible combinations) combine to disclose the limitations of the claims listed above. Skinner discloses the detector, but it is the Applicants’ position that the reference does not expressly disclose an “impedance meter” comprising an “impedance analyser”. Widmer discloses a wireless power transmission resonator (fig 11; par 84-96) comprising a source (1122) and a detector (1110-1130), wherein the detector comprises an impedance meter (1115, 1116, 1108) comprising an impedance analyser (1108).
Widmer discloses a transmit resonator (equivalent to Skinner’s resonator array) connected to a power source and to a detector with the claimed impedance meter and impedance analyser. Unlike the Applicants’ disclosure, Widmer actually illustrates how to build these components. Thus, Widmer’s narrow disclosure satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of these components, which are only generically named in the specification.
Skinner and Widmer are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely transmitter resonators with detectors. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Skinner’s transmitter/detector to include an impedance meter/analyser, as taught by Widmer. The motivation for doing so would have been to measure changes in the received power.
The claim does not otherwise provide any use or consequence for the impedance analyzer. Even if it did “analyze” the measured impedance values, nothing is done with this information. Thus, no corresponding disclosure is required to be cited to in the prior art. The motivation to combine references only needs to address the physical inclusion of the meter/analyzer in the Skinner/Hall (or Hall/Skinner) transmitter/detector. There is no requirement that the motivation must also address the functionality of these components (again, because no functionality is disclosed or claimed).
Conclusion
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