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 .
Specification
The use of the terms Bluetooth™ and WiFi™, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see page 3, line 11 and page 11, line 2, of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11, line 3, contains the trademark/trade names Bluetooth™ and WiFi™. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). However, claim 11 appears to use the Bluetooth™ and WiFi™ trademarks to refer to a communication protocol, instead of a particular material or product. Thus, the examiner is interpreting the claim as referring to Bluetooth™ and WiFi™ protocols and it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the scope of the claim (for example, the Bluetooth™ and WiFi™ protocols that were known at the time of applicant’s effective filing date).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarajedini (US 2020/0252141 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sarajedini teaches: A method for testing of far-field wireless charging (see figs. 1-3 and 5a-5c; para. 0055-0063, 0069, 0072 and 0073), including: conducting a far-field (see para. 0063) wireless power transfer between a device (transmitter 102a, 102b, 102n) and a device under test DUT (electronic device 122a, 122b, 122n); conducting a data transfer between the device and the DUT (data transfer is performed by communication component(s) 112 and communication component(s) 144); and establishing a figure of merit of a wireless charging of the DUT in dependence of the power transfer and the data transfer (see para. 0073, information related to status, efficiency, user data, power consumption, billing, geo-location, and other types of information; and para. 0128-0133, information identifying a first-third amount of power delivered to the receiver).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DaSilva et al (US 2019/0256397 A1) in view of Sarajedini (US 2020/0252141 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 12 & 13, DaSilva et al teaches (Fig. 24, paras. 0079-0100, 0116 & 0117)): A device (2206, 2410a, 2412, 2420a & 2420b) and method for testing of far-field wireless transmission, including a first transceiver (2420a) configured to conduct far-field (see para. 0080) wireless signal transfer between the device and a device under test DUT (2402a & 2402b); a second transceiver (2420b) configured to conduct a wireless signal transfer between the device and the DUT (2402a & 2402b); and evaluating performance of the DUT in dependence of the wireless signal transfer (the test instruments may be configured to measure power, spectrum (frequency) and/or modulation (e.g., waveform, EVM) and may be evaluated by the system, see para. 0117).
The embodiment of Fig. 24 of DaSilva et al does not specifically state that the first transceiver is configured to conduct wireless power transfer, the second transceiver is configured to conduct a data transfer, or a processor configured to establish a figure of merit of a wireless charging of the DUT in dependence of the power transfer and the data transfer.
However, DaSilva et al does suggest that in some embodiments power, data and/or control connections may be made over-the-air via one or more elements of the antenna array (see paras. 0103 & 0106).
Furthermore, Sarajedini teaches: A device (transmitter 102a, 102b, 102n and/or electronic device 122a, 122b, 122n) and method for testing of far-field wireless charging (see para. 0063), including a first transmitter (antenna array(s) 110 and/or antenna(s) 124) configured to conduct a far-field wireless power transfer between the device and a device under test, DUT (the other of transmitter 102a, 102b, 102n and/or electronic device 122a, 122b, 122n); a transceiver (communication component(s) 112 and/or communication component(s) 144) configured to conduct a data transfer between the device and the DUT; and a processor (processor(s) 104 and/or processor(s) 132 & processor(s) 140) configured to establish a figure of merit (see para. 0073, information related to status, efficiency, user data, power consumption, billing, geo-location, and other types of information; and para. 0128-0133, information identifying a first-third amount of power delivered to the receiver) of a wireless charging of the DUT in dependence of the power transfer and the data transfer (see figs. 1-3 and 5a-5c; para. 0055-0062, 0069, 0072 and 0073).
Therefore, in view of Sarajedini’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, to modify the device of DaSilva et al to include: the first transceiver is configured to conduct wireless power transfer, the second transceiver is configured to conduct a data transfer, or a processor configured to establish a figure of merit of a wireless charging of the DUT in dependence of the power transfer and the data transfer, since this would allow the device of DaSilva et al to be used to test DUTs having wireless power transmission and/or reception capabilities and wireless data transmission and/or reception capabilities. It is noted that para. 0079 of DaSilva et al teaches that there are various possibilities of devices to be tested. The combination would allow for the use of DaSilva et al’s test device to test the various wireless power and data transmitters and receivers of Sarajedini for compliance with regulatory and/or other performance requirements prior to installation (see para. 0082 of DaSilva et al).
Note: while independent claims 1 and 12 vary in scope (for example, claim 12 does not require any transceivers or two-way wireless power or data transfer), the rejection of claims 1 and 12 are grouped together above for convenience, as it is believed that it should be apparent how the references apply to both of these claims since the method steps of claim 12 are recited as functional language of the structure recited in claim 1. However, the examiner is not considering the method steps of claim 12 to require the same structure (for example, the transceivers) of claim 1. Claim 12 does not specify what structure is performing the method steps.
Regarding claim 2, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 1, the far-field wireless power transfer between the device and the DUT exceeding a Fraunhofer distance (both para. 0080 of DaSilva et al and para. 0063 of Sarajedini states that the wireless transmissions may be in the far-field, which would necessarily exceed the Fraunhofer distance).
Regarding claim 3, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 1, the first transceiver further configured for beamforming of the far-field wireless power transfer (both DaSilva et al (see para. 0090, 0091 & 0116) and Sarajedini (see para. 0066 and 0070, which teach creating pockets of energy using contructive interference) teach beamforming.
Regarding claim 4, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 1, the second transceiver including one of: a wireless transceiver; and a wired transceiver (both DaSilva et al (see para. 0116 & 0117) and Sarajedini (see para. 0085 and 0101) teach the second transceiver is a wireless transceiver).
Regarding claim 5, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 1, the data transfer including one of: a receive power of the DUT due to the power transfer; a battery charge power of the DUT due to the power transfer; a battery DC level of the DUT; and a battery state of charge of the DUT (see Sarajedini para. 0073, information related to status, efficiency, user data, power consumption, billing, geo-location, and other types of information, and para. 0128-0133, information identifying a first-third amount of power delivered to the receiver).
Regarding claim 6, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 1, the data transfer including: a transmit power of the DUT due to the power transfer (see Sarajedini para. 0128-0133, information identifying a first-third amount of power delivered to the receiver. Note that the test(s) performed can be considered a test of any of the transmitters 102a, 102b, 102n and/or electronic devices 122a, 122b, 122n).
Regarding claim 7, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 6, the figure of merit of the DUT including one of: a compliance of the transmit power of the DUT with a preset transmit power at a preset frequency; and a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of the transmit power of the DUT (see Sarajedini para. 0059, 0065, 0116, 0119, the electronic device can be charged, and see para. 0073, information related to status, efficiency, user data, power consumption, billing, geo-location, and other types of information).
Regarding claim 8, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 5, the figure of merit of the DUT including at least one of: a charging efficiency of the DUT over time; a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a relative distance between the device and the DUT; a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a relative orientation between the device and the DUT; a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a relative motion between the device and the DUT; a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a preset channel condition between the device and the DUT; a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a simultaneous wireless data transfer of the first transceiver; and a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a simultaneous wireless transmission in a frequency range of the first transceiver; and a charging efficiency of the DUT in dependence of a waveform of the power transfer. (see Saradejini para. 0059, 0065, 0116, 0119, the electronic device can be charged, and see para. 0073, information related to status, efficiency, user data, power consumption, billing, geo-location, and other types of information; and para. 0065 and 0069, the transmitters 102 may adjust values of the waveform characteristics such as phase, gain, direction, amplitude, polarization, and/or frequency).
Regarding claim 9, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 8, the relative orientation including an angle of arrival, AoA, or an angle of departure, AoD, of the DUT (see Sarajedini para. 0069, the trajectory of the waveform indicates angle of arrival and/or angle of departure; and para. 0079, the receiver sensor 128 is a gyroscope that provides orientation data).
Regarding claim 10, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 8, the preset channel condition including one or more of: a fading profile; an outdoor condition; and an indoor condition (since the system DaSilva et al and Sarajedini must be used either outdoor and/or indoor, thus, the preset channel condition would necessarily be related to outdoor and/or indoor condition).
Regarding claim 11, DaSilva et al as modified by Sarajedini teaches: The device of claim 8, the processor further configured to trigger the simultaneous wireless transmission (see Sarajedini figs. 5a-5c, the wireless power and data transmissions are performed simultaneously); the simultaneous wireless transmission including a Bluetooth, WiFi, cellular or ambient transmission (see Sarajedini para. 0085 and 0101).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, of the remarks filed Octover 14, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The indefiniteness rejection of claims 12 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, of the remarks filed October 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarajedini (US 2020/0252141 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of DaSilva et al (US 2019/0256397 A1) in view of Sarajedini (US 2020/0252141 A1).
Applicant's arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 12 as being anticipated by Sarajedini (US 2020/0252141), filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Sarajedini does not teach a first transceiver configured to conduct a far-field wireless power transfer between the device and a device under test DUT because Sarajedini’s transmitter 102 is not a transceiver, is not persuasive. It is noted that claim 12 does not require a transceiver. The language in claim 12, “conducting a far-field wireless power transfer between a device and a device under test, DUT” does not require bi-directional or two-way wireless power transfer. Thus, the transmission of wireless power from a transmitter to a receiver, as taught by Sarajedini, meets this claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/JARED FUREMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859