DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“APA”; specification, pages 1-2).
APA discloses that downstream wireless power transmission and upstream sensor data transmission is known in an HV transformer. Hall teaches that it is known to increase the transmission distance of wireless power by using intermediate resonators.
The Applicants’ remarks are addressed in turn.
“First” (Remarks, page 10), the art rejection is updated to cite to APA as the primary reference. APA teaches that wireless power in HV transformers is known and that it includes the detector at the low voltage side and the sensor at the high voltage side.
“Second” (page 10, bottom), the Applicants’ comments are not persuasive. The Applicants state that the array “‘printed on an electrically insulating film that comprises a dielectric material’ adds concrete structure that directly addresses the Examiner’s concerns about survivability and insulation in a high voltage environment.” (Remarks, page 10, bottom). The Examiner responds that the specification only mentions “printed” two times:
(1) publication paragraph 22, which is just a brief description of figure 3; and
(2) publication paragraph 34, which simply states that a benefit of a planar LC circuit is that they take up little space and can be easily printed.
There is no disclosure or evidence of record to clearly tie the miniaturization of an LC array (to be “printed” on a material) to survivability in a “harsh” high voltage environment. Rather, the specification suggests that printing the resonators is done to save space (page 1, lines 23-24).
For the purpose of the art rejection of the claims, if a prior art teaches the structure of a printed LC resonator, then it will be interpreted as having the structure necessary for survivability in the claimed HV environment. The Examiner’s comments from the Non-Final (2/25/26, pages 6-7) in response to survivability allegations are incorporated here.
“Third” (page 11), the detector on the low potential and the sensor on the high voltage is taught by APA.
Regarding the impedance analyzer (bottom of page 11), the Examiner reiterates that the specification only mentions this component by name. At no point does the specification define it as “characterizes complex impedance of an integrated sensor capacitor”. Any voltage or current sensor would be related to impedance through Ohm’s Law. No rebuttal has been presented to this interpretation.
The Applicants’ characterization of Skinner (page 11, bottom) is not persuasive. The Applicants are comparing Skinner’s impedance analyzer power connection to the claimed impedance analyzer data connection. These are not equivalent and one does not disprove the other. Skinner may have a wired powered detector/analyzer, but the data is received is from a remotely located wireless sensor. For both Skinner and Widmer, it is not necessary that these references disclose that incoming data is “via a multistage resonator array in a transformer”. This is a piecemeal analysis of the prior art. The multistage resonator array is taught by Hall and the transformer is taught by APA. It is not necessary for every limitation in a §103 obviousness rejection to also teach these same limitations – the Applicants’ position incorrectly requires that prior art must anticipate the claim.
“Lastly” (page 12), the Applicants do not present any evidence to demonstrate how their impedance analyzer is not equivalent to a data demodulator. The Applicants’ detector also produces a carrier wave on which data is modulated by a sensor capacitance change (due to temperature or pressure). There is no “functional distinction” between the two, as alleged. If an impedance meter/analyzer is intended to incorporate specific structural or functional limitations into the claim, and these features do not appear in the specification, then it is the Applicants’ burden to present external evidence to support their position.
The Applicants do not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims.
The transformer will be interpreted as a distinct limitation. The Examiner notes that the transformer is only named – no part of its structure (i.e. windings) appear in the claims. For example, it would appear that the AC power source and detector are at a first end of the transformer and the sensor is at a second end of the transformer (the claim, however, defines these components at ends of the array).
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 the Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“APA”; specification, pages 1-2) in view of Hall (US 2010/0237709), Skinner (US 2017/0167250), Ramond (US 2011/0314328), Muralt (“Pyroelectricity”, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2005, pages 441-448) and Baarman (US 2011/0259960).
With respect to claim 1, APA discloses a HV electrical device transformer comprising a sensor arrangement (page 1, lines 6-16) comprising:
a resonator array (page 2, lines 1-10) along a transfer path;
an AC electrical power source (obvious to create the HV) situated at a first end of the resonator array (the side closets to the detector);
a sensor (page 1, lines 13-15; page 2, lines 1-2) configured to operate at a high electrical potential (page 2, lines 8-10) and situated at a second end of the resonator array; and
a detector (page 1, lines 13-15) configured to operate at a low electrical potential (page 2, lines 8-10) and situated at the first end of the resonator array, the detector configured to receive signals from the sensor, the signal indicating a measurement of the property (obvious that a sensor would report what its sensing);
wherein the sensor is arranged at a high electrical potential and the detector is arranged at a low electric potential relative to the high electrical potential (page 2, lines 8-10) such that the sensor and the detector are separated by an electrical potential difference of at least 1kV.
APA discloses that it is known to use wireless power in a high voltage transformer. This known structure includes a source and detector at one end of the array/transformer within a low voltage potential and a sensor at the second end with a high voltage potential. The detector sends wireless power to and receives wireless communication from the sensor.
APA does not expressly disclose:
There are three resonators, they are LC resonators (the skilled artisan would have understood that the term “resonator” includes paired inductive and capacitive components), and that they are galvanically insulated.
The detector comprises an impedance meter/analyzer.
The sensor is integrated into the last resonator of the array.
The sensor comprises a capacitor of the LC circuit.
The capacitor dielectric includes one or more pyro-electric polymer or piezo-electric polymer.
Each LC circuit is printed on an electrically insulating film.
Hall discloses an arrangement (fig 6, 74, 76; par 163, 185-192, 662-666) comprising:
a resonator array comprising an array of 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
an AC electrical power source (7400) situated at a first end of the resonator array, and
a load (7402) situated at a second end of the resonator array.
Hall discloses that it was known, prior to the Applicants earliest priority date, to use a plurality of LC resonator circuits in between a wireless power 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). The Applicants’ admitted prior art also acknowledges that resonator arrays were known (specification, page 2, lines 17-21).
APA and Hall are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transfer systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify APA to include “LC” resonators and to include at least three such resonators. The motivation for doing so would have been to build a resonator using a known and proven design (the skilled artisan would understand “resonator” to mean it has both an inductor and capacitor) and to extend the range over which power is transferred.
B-C) Skinner discloses a sensor arrangement (fig 2; par 2, 12, 19-30) comprising:
a resonator array (202, 210 – this makes a 2x1 array) of LC circuits arranged along a transfer path;
an AC electrical power source (208) situated at a first end of the resonator array;
a sensor (216; par 2, 12, 29) situated at a second end of the resonator array, wherein the sensor is integrated with the resonator array (see fig 2)
a detector (par 28, “the current in the first resonator 202 can be detected and modulations in the current can be associated with data”) situated at the first end of the resonator array and configured to receive signals from the sensor, the signals indicating a measurement of a property, the detector comprising an impedance meter (par 28, current is detected – through Ohm’s Law, impedance is inversely proportional to current) including an impedance analyser (par 28; “and modulations in the current can be associated with data” – this association indicates that the metered current is analyzed).
Skinner discloses an LC resonator array that sends wireless power from a first end (source/detector) to a second end (integrated sensor) and wireless sensor 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 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 include with the generic “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 (“meter”) is then demodulated to extract the sensor data. This demodulation is interpreted as the “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 (even though the claim suggests that they are effectively the same component – the meter only includes the analyzer and nothing else).
The Applicants disagree but, through multiple replies, do not effectively dispute this meter/analyzer interpretation; thus, it is presumed to be correct. The Applicants do not cite to any evidence to support their assertion that the claimed meter/analyzer have structure or functionality that distinguishes over 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.
Skinner also discloses that the sensed property is one or more of temperature and pressure (par 29). Skinner does not expressly disclose that the sensor uses a polymer within the dielectric of the capacitor that makes up the LC array.
The combination (APA and Hall) and Skinner are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely resonator arrays. 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 to include the impedance meter/analyzer taught by Skinner. The motivation for doing so would have been to retrieve the data sent by the sensor.
The Examiner also notes that Skinner is part of APA (specification, page 2, lines 11-14). Thus, citations to Skinner are not really to a different reference. APA teaches that it is known to use LC resonators in HV transformers to send power to sensors. Skinner teaches those sensors can be for temperature or pressure.
C-D-E) The combination (APA, Hall, Skinner) discloses the LC resonator (at the second end) comprises a capacitor and a sensor for sensing pressure or temperature. The combination does not expressly disclose the sensor comprises the capacitor of the LC resonator array or a polymer within the capacitor dielectric.
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 APA/Skinner LC circuit at the second end in 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.
The combination (APA 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.
F) 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 (APA/Hall/Skinner/Raymond) 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.
With respect to claim 2, APA, Hall and Skinner combine to disclose the resonator array is configured with a fixed natural frequency (see equations in Skinner paragraph 20) 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), wherein the natural frequency is configured to propagate changes of the one or more properties along the resonator array to the detector (APA, page 1 discloses successful transfer of power downstream and sensor data upstream).
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 or Muralt (see alternative rejection below).
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 claim 2 are descriptive of the effects of the sensor on frequency. These wherein clauses do not include any narrowing structural or functional limitations. Support for this can be found in the language used in the claims: the resonator array is “configured with” a natural frequency, but no defining structural features are named. An LC resonator is an inductor (L) and capacitor (C) either in series or parallel. If the Applicants’ LC resonator is configured to have the listed effects, then so is the prior art’s.
If the independent claim LC resonators require narrowing or 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, APA, Hall, Skinner, Ramond and Baarman combine 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.
With respect to claims 15-16, APA, Hall, Skinner, Ramond and Baarman combine 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 is 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, the combination teaches a 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, APA discloses the volage of the HV electrical device comprises the electrical power source that operates at a voltage that is greater than or equal to 1kV (see pages 1-2).
With respect to claim 23, APA, Hall and Skinner 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”. APA clearly discloses the intention to use the resonator array to power the sensor – no other loads are named.
Alternatively, claims 1-2, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the APA in view of Hall, Skinner, Muralt (“Pyroelectricity”, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2005, pages 441-448) and Baarman. This rejection replaces Raymond with Muralt. Claim 1 has been amended to remove the requirement that the capacitor dielectric polymer is for both properties and instead recites, “at least one of a pyro-electric polymer and piezo-electric polymer”.
The combination of the references (all but Muralt) teaches the limitations of the claims, as noted above, except that the combination does not expressly disclose the sensed property is temperature.
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 of the references 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.
Alternatively, claims 1-2, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA, Hall, Skinner, Widmer (US 2016/0187519), Ramond, and Baarman.
Alternatively, the claims are unpatentable over APA in view of Hall, Skinner Widmer, Muralt and Baarman.
These two alternative rejections further cite to Widmer for its disclosure of an impedance meter/analyser. There are two rejections; one for each of the polymer types.
APA, Hall, Skinner, Ramond or Muralt, and Baarman 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 APA’s first end LC 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.
The combination 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 APA/Skinner’s 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
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim 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
Prosecution Insights