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 § 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) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ettes et al. US 2015/0341085, in view of Van Wageningen et al. US 2017/0018977
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15; Ettes teaches a wireless power receiver (power
receiver 505, fig. 10) comprising: a receiver coil (receiver coil 507, fig. 10), wherein the receiver coil is configured to receive a wireless power transfer signal transmitted by a wireless power transmitter (power transmitter 501, fig. 6);
a load (power load 1003, fig. 10) coupled to the receiver coil, wherein the load is configured to receive power from the receiver coil;
communication circuitry (communication unit 1007, fig. 10), wherein the
communication circuitry is configured to send a synchronization message to the
wireless power transmitter (communication is specifically performed in dedicated
repeating time intervals. The repeating time intervals will henceforth be referred to as
communication time intervals. The power receiver 505 further comprises a receiver
communication unit 1007 which is arranged to communicate with the power transmitter
501 during the communication intervals., refer to [0155] and [0186]),
wherein the synchronization message indicates a first time duration of a first time
period and a second time duration of a second time period (the power receiver may
transmit a request that the duration of the repeating time intervals should be of a given
minimum. Upon receiving the message the power transmitter can proceed to determine
the duration of the repeating time intervals. Specifically, it may set the duration of the
repeating time intervals to the requested duration if possible, refer to [0257]), wherein
the second time period corresponds to a period of wireless power transfer (The power
transmitter 501 and power receiver 505 may thus apply a cyclically repeated time-
slotted frame in which one slot (the communication intervals) is reserved for data
communication and a second slot (the power transfer intervals) is reserved for power
transfer, refer to [0190]), wherein the first time period and the second time period are
part of a repeating time interval (communication is specifically performed in dedicated
repeating time intervals. The repeating time intervals will henceforth be referred to as
communication time intervals., refer to [0155]); and
a load controller circuit (load coupler, 1001, refer to abstract), wherein the load
controller circuit is configured to adapt loading of the wireless power transfer signal such
that the load is reduced during the first time period (during the communication intervals,
the power receiver 505 will typically decouple its power load from the receive inductor
507 SO that the power transfer signal is not loaded by this, refer to [0155]),
wherein, during the first time period: the communication circuitry is configured to
communicate a measured parameter to the wireless power transmitter, wherein the
measured parameter comprises an indication of power received by the wireless power
receiver during the first time period (the power transmitter 501 and power receiver 505
may thus apply a cyclically repeated time-slotted frame in which one slot (the
communication intervals) is reserved for data communication and a second slot (the
power transfer intervals) is reserved for power transfer. This specifically allows the
conditions and parameters (e.g. frequency, amplitude, signal shape) for data transfer to
be optimized in the data communication slot while the conditions and parameters for
power transfer can be optimized in the power transfer slot., refer to [0190]).
Ettes however is silent wherein the first time period corresponds to a period of
foreign object detection and wherein, during the first time period: the wireless power
receiver is configured to receive an electromagnetic test signal from the wireless power
transmitter.
Van Wageningen teaches wherein the first time period corresponds to a period of
foreign object detection and wherein, during the first time period: the wireless power
receiver is configured to receive an electromagnetic test signal from the wireless power
transmitter (a power on operation, the foreign object detector 209 may first perform a
test with the power receiver 105 powered off and with only a very low level test signal
being generated by the transmitter coil 103. It may estimate/calculate/measure the
transmit power for this signal and compare it to a threshold., refer to [0309]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method as taught by Van
Wageningen with the wireless power receiver of Ettes in order to safely identify any
foreign objects within the system.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen
teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, wherein the measured
parameter is used by the wireless power transmitter to detect the presence of a foreign
object (refer to [0309] of Van Wageningen).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen
teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, wherein, during the
second time period, the wireless power receiver is configured to continuously measure
power provided to the load, and wherein if the measured power is below a preset power
level, the communication circuitry is configured to request a longer time duration for the
first time period (refer to [0257] of Ettes).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen
teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, wherein, during the
second time period, the wireless power receiver is configured to continuously measure
power provided to the load, and wherein if the measured power is greater than a preset
power level, the communication circuitry is configured to request a shorter time duration
for the first time period (refer to [0257] of Ettes).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen
teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, wherein the load
controller circuit comprises a switching circuit, and wherein the switching circuit is
configured to disconnect the load during the first time period such that a received power
level is reduced during the first time period (refer to [0155] of Ettes).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen
teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, wherein the
communicator circuitry is configured to communicate a request for the first time duration
and the second time duration, and wherein the communication circuitry is configured to
receive a response indicating the first time duration and the second time duration as
determined by the wireless power transmitter (refer to [0257] of Ettes).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ettes et al. US 2015/0341085, in view of Van Wageningen et al. US 2017/0018977, in
view of Saito US 2014/0077988.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen
teaches all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 8, respectively, however is silent wherein
the wireless power transfer signal comprises an electromagnetic field, and wherein a
strength of the electromagnetic field during the first time period is greater than or equal
to a strength of the electromagnetic field during the second time period. Saito teaches wherein the wireless power transfer signal comprises an electromagnetic field, and wherein a strength of the electromagnetic field during the first time period is greater than or equal to a strength of the electromagnetic field during the second time period (where the object is detected, and the circuitry modifies an amount of one of power and field strength of the electromagnetic radiation output by the active sensor responsive to the detection of whether human beings or only objects other than human beings are present in the region of observation., refer to Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method as taught by Saito
with the wireless power receiver of the combination of Ettes and Van Wageningen in
order to safely operate the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, The applicant argues that Ettes does not disclose a wireless power receiver communicating “an indication of power received during the first time period.” After reviewing the cited portions of Ettes, this argument is not persuasive.
Ettes explicitly describes that the receiver measures power during the same time frame in which the coils exchange a test signal. Paragraph 54 explains that “the measured power 50 may specifically correspond to the same time frame in which one of the coils sends a test signal,” and further clarifies that this measured parameter is communicated back to the transmitter as part of the data transfer signal. This measured parameter is not merely incidental. it is expressly described as indicative of the power received during that interval.
Because the claims only require an “indication of power received,” and Ettes directly teaches communication of a measured parameter that reflects received power during the test interval, the reference satisfies the limitation. The applicant’s argument focuses on wording rather than substance; the disclosure in Ettes aligns squarely with the claimed feature.
2. First Time Period Corresponding to Foreign Object Detection and Receiver Receiving a Test Signal (Claims 1, 8, and 15)
The applicant next argues that Van Wageningen does not disclose a receiver receiving a test signal from the transmitter during a foreign object detection period. This argument is also not persuasive.
Van Wageningen describes a test mode used specifically for foreign object detection. Paragraph 47 explains that the system compares a measured load at the receiver to an expected load under a controlled inductive power signal. For the receiver to present a load and for the system to perform this comparison, the receiver must necessarily receive the inductive test signal generated by the transmitter. Without receiving the test signal, the receiver could not participate in the load measurement that forms the basis of foreign object detection.
Thus, Van Wageningen’s test mode constitutes the claimed “first time period corresponding to foreign object detection,” and the inductive power signal applied during this mode is the claimed “test signal.” When combined with Ettes’ synchronized communication intervals, the references collectively teach the claimed behavior.
3. Applicant’s Assertion That Claims 7 and 14 Fall With Claims 1 and 8
The applicant argues that because claims 1 and 8 should be allowable, claims 7 and 14 must also be allowable. As explained above, the rejections of claims 1 and 8 are properly supported by Ettes and Van Wageningen. Therefore, the dependent claims do not fall by default, and the analysis proceeds to the additional limitations in claims 7 and 14.
4. Whether Saito Discloses a Wireless Power Transfer Signal (Claims 7 and 14)
The applicant argues that Saito does not disclose a wireless power transfer signal. This argument mischaracterizes the role of Saito in the combination.
Saito is not relied upon to supply the transmitter/receiver structure that comes from Ettes and Van Wageningen. Instead, Saito is cited for its teaching on controlling electromagnetic field strength and power in response to detection events. Paragraph 28 explains that when human beings or objects are detected, the circuitry “modifies the amount of power or field strength of the electromagnetic radiation output by the active sensor.”
The claims require that the wireless power transfer signal “comprises an electromagnetic field” whose strength varies across time periods. Saito directly teaches modulation of EM field strength and power. When this teaching is applied to the inductive EM field already present in Ettes and Van Wageningen, the combination reasonably yields the claimed behavior.
Thus, the applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection.
5. Field Strength Relationship Between First and Second Time Periods (Claims 7 and 14)
The applicant argues that Saito does not disclose that the electromagnetic field strength during the first time period is greater than or equal to the strength during the second time period. This argument is also not persuasive.
Saito teaches that field strength is modified when an object or human is detected. In typical sensor-based exposure-control systems, detection triggers a reduction or capping of field strength. This naturally results in the first time period (before detection) having a field strength that is greater than or equal to the field strength in the second time period (after detection).
Paragraph 28 supports this understanding by explaining that the system adjusts power and field strength in response to detection. When combined with the structured time periods of Ettes and Van Wageningen, Saito’s teaching reasonably suggests the claimed inequality relationship.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at (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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights