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.
Response to Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive to overcome the rejection when the combined teachings of Ettes and Wageningen are properly considered. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that the citation to Ettes ¶190 in the prior Office action did not, by itself, adequately identify the disclosure of communicating an indication of received power. The pertinent findings are clarified below.
1. Communication of an indication of power received during the first time period
Applicant argues that Ettes ¶190 merely discloses separate communication and power-transfer intervals and does not disclose communicating an indication of power received during the first time period.
The Examiner agrees that Ettes ¶190, standing alone, does not disclose that the communicated information is an indication of power received during the first time period. In particular:
Ettes ¶185 discloses synchronizing repeating time intervals and identifying communication intervals, Ettes ¶186 discloses receiver communication with the transmitter during those communication intervals, Ettes ¶187 discloses generating a carrier during the communication interval. The carrier may be generated by the transmitter and modulated by the receiver, including through load modulation., Ettes ¶¶188–190 disclose a cyclically repeated time-slotted arrangement having a communication interval and a power-transfer interval and Ettes ¶180 discloses decoupling the receiver’s load during the communication interval.
The content of the received-power communication and its use for foreign-object detection are instead taught by Wageningen.
Wageningen ¶310 discloses a second foreign-object test in which the power receiver loads the transmitter-coil signal and powers its internal circuitry, possibly while operating with a reduced load. Wageningen expressly explains that its term “power transfer signal” includes the transmitter-coil signal even when the system is not in the ordinary power-transfer phase.
Wageningen ¶311 further discloses that, during this second test, the foreign-object detector compares the transmitted power with a received-power estimate transmitted from the power receiver to the power transmitter. That received-power estimate is an indication of power received by the receiver.
Wageningen ¶312 confirms that this second test is part of foreign-object detection. Wageningen ¶¶314–316 further disclose receiver-transmitter communication supporting the different foreign-object tests and comparing transmitted power with power received by the receiver.
Wageningen ¶¶318–320 provide another particularly relevant implementation. The transmitter first generates a low-level signal and then generates a ping signal that powers the receiver. In response to the ping signal, the receiver transmits a message to the transmitter, typically by load modulation, and the message may include a receive-power estimate.
Accordingly, Ettes supplies the repeating first and second intervals, receiver load reduction, transmitter-generated communication carrier, and receiver-to-transmitter communication during the first interval. Wageningen supplies the use of such a transmitter-coil signal as an electromagnetic FOD test signal and the communication of a received-power estimate from the receiver to the transmitter as part of the FOD test.
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply Wageningen’s received-power-based FOD test during Ettes’s scheduled non-power-transfer/communication interval so that foreign-object detection could be performed while the ordinary receiver load is disconnected or reduced, thereby improving the accuracy and safety of foreign-object detection without interfering with the normal power-transfer interval. The resulting arrangement would predictably use:
Ettes’s first interval for the test and associated receiver communication; Wageningen’s low or controlled transmitter-coil test signal; Wageningen’s received-power estimate transmitted by the receiver; and Ettes’s second interval for ordinary wireless power transfer.
Ettes ¶189 states that the ordinary power-transfer signal is not applied during its communication interval, but Ettes ¶187 separately permits a transmitter-generated electromagnetic carrier during that interval. Moreover, Wageningen ¶310 expressly treats the transmitter-coil signal used outside the ordinary power-transfer phase as a “power transfer signal.” Thus, the proposed combination does not require ordinary power transfer during Ettes’s first interval; it requires only a controlled electromagnetic test signal sufficient for the FOD test and receiver communication, as claimed.
The proposed modification represents the application of Wageningen’s known FOD technique to Ettes’s known time-slotted wireless power system for the predictable purpose of detecting foreign objects. See MPEP § 2143, particularly the rationales concerning combining known elements and applying a known technique to a similar device. The required obviousness explanation must link the factual findings to the legal conclusion, which the original citation to Ettes ¶190 alone did not do.
Applicant’s first argument is therefore persuasive insofar as it identifies a deficiency in the original citation to Ettes ¶190. Nevertheless, the claimed received-power communication is taught by Wageningen ¶¶310–312 and ¶320 and would have been used during Ettes’s first scheduled interval for the reasons stated above.
2. Receiver powered off during Wageningen’s first FOD test
Applicant argues that Wageningen ¶309 performs its test while the receiver is powered off and therefore cannot disclose a receiver that receives the test signal and communicates a received-power indication.
The Examiner agrees that Wageningen ¶309, considered by itself, does not disclose active communication of a received-power estimate from the receiver. Paragraph 309 describes one possible first FOD test in which the receiver is powered off and the transmitter generates a very low-level test signal. Although Wageningen explains that the signal may still induce eddy currents in conductive portions of the powered-off receiver, ¶309 does not disclose the receiver transmitting a received-power estimate during that test.
Wageningen is not, however, limited to the ¶309 test. Paragraphs 310–312 disclose a separate second FOD test in which: the receiver loads the transmitter-coil signal more substantially; the receiver powers its internal circuitry; the receiver may operate with a reduced load; the receiver transmits a received-power estimate to the transmitter; and the transmitter uses that estimate in the foreign-object determination. Paragraph 312 expressly states that both tests can be part of foreign-object detection and can be used sequentially, alternatively, or depending on the operating condition. Paragraph 313 further explains that the second test may be used instead of the first test when the receiver is to remain powered. Paragraphs 318–320 similarly disclose a ping signal that powers the receiver, followed by a receiver message that can contain a receive-power estimate.
Consequently, Applicant’s reliance on ¶309 does not address Wageningen’s powered-receiver FOD embodiments in ¶¶310–312 and ¶¶318–320. The rejection should not rely on ¶309 alone for the claimed communication limitation. The appropriate disclosure is Wageningen ¶¶310–312, supplemented by ¶¶318–320.
Subject to the other claim limitations and mappings stated in the rejection, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 or the corresponding rejection of dependent claims 2–6, 9–13, and 16–20.
Response concerning claims 7 and 14
1. Dependency from claims 1 and 8
Applicant argues that claims 7 and 14 are patentable because the Ettes/Wageningen combination does not establish the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
For the reasons stated above, the inherited limitations of claims 1 and 8 may be established by the corrected combination of Ettes and Wageningen. Applicant’s dependency argument therefore does, by itself, overcome the rejection of claims 7 and 14.
That conclusion does not resolve whether Saito establishes the additional field-strength limitation of claims 7 and 14.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, Applicant discloses that Saito does not describe a wireless power transmitter and receiver or a signal used to transfer operating power to a wireless power receiver. Saito concerns an adaptive sensing system having passive and active sensors.
Nevertheless, in a combination rejection, every reference need not independently disclose every claim element. Ettes and Wageningen disclose wireless power-transfer systems and wireless power-transfer signals. Saito is therefore relied upon only for an additional field-strength teaching if that teaching were applicable to the claimed relationship.
Under MPEP § 2145, a rejection based on a combination generally cannot be overcome merely by showing that one reference does not disclose features supplied by another reference. The MPEP also cautions, however, that this principle does not answer an argument showing that the combined references still fail to teach the claimed limitation.
Thus, Applicant’s statement that Saito itself lacks a wireless power-transfer signal does not alone defeat the combination because Ettes and Wageningen supply the wireless power context. The prior Office action nevertheless incorrectly characterized Saito’s active-sensor radiation as itself being a wireless power-transfer signal.
3. Comparative field strength during the first and second periods
Applicant’s argument on this limitation is not persuasive.
Claims 7 and 14 require that the strength of the electromagnetic field during the first, FOD time period be greater than or equal to the field strength during the second, power-transfer time period.
Saito ¶37 states that the power or field level of an active sensor may be controlled based on the presence of a human. Its example permits more power when no human is detected. The compared conditions are human-presence and no-human-presence sensing conditions, not the claimed first FOD period and second power-transfer period.
“when a human being is detected and human safety regulations prescribe a maximum power of 10 dBm which is different from that of non human's regulation, the power directed towards the human being is controlled to be less than 10 dBm (10 mW). When no human being is detected, the active sensor 4 can emit more power according to normal (non human related) regulations.”
Saito ¶60 discloses controlling transmit power or field strength based on distance and safety considerations. It likewise contains no comparison between an FOD period and a power-transfer period.
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