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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being indefinite for two reasons. (1) Claim 1 does not recite an “electrical case”. Therefore, recitation of “the electrical case” lacks antecedent basis. (2) Claim 1 recites two separate cases (i.e., a case for the receiving coil and a case for the transmitting coil), its indefinite which case is being referenced.
Claims 3-8 are rejected because the phrase “the case” renders the claims indefinite. Which of the two cases from claim 1 is being referenced?
In claim 14, at line 2, the phrase “the transceiver” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 9,590,444 to Walley et al. (“Walley”).
As to independent claim 1, an electrical coupling device (1:29-31. Walley’s disclosure relates to a wireless power system.) comprising: a receiving coil (12:64: RX coil 260, Fig. 5: 86, Fig. 8: 222); a receiver board coupled to the receiving coil and comprising variable input voltages with respect to ground (BRI: a circuit board connected to the receiving coil, accepting variable voltages (e.g., 2V, 5V, 12V) referenced to ground. 9:9-16, 12:60-13:31. Receiver side circuit performs all the required functions of a “receiver board”. Receiver side circuit’s components include 258, RX coil 260, 262, and 256. Receiver side circuit is coupled to RX coil 260. Fig. 5, 8: see coil integrated with other components on circuit board. These components take inductively received AC, rectify it, and produce variable voltage levels (e.g., 3-20V or other stepped voltages).); a case for the receiving coil (10:12-16. A housing physically encloses the receiving coil, as is standard in the art.); a transmitting coil (Fig. 5: 84, Fig. 8: 202); a transmitter board coupled to the transmitting coil and comprising variable output voltages with respect to ground (BRI: a circuit board connected to the transmitting coil, outputting power at multiple voltage levels referenced to ground. 9:64-10:12. Transmitter side circuit performs all the required functions of a “transmitter board”. Transmitter side’s components include 88, TX coil (see TX coil in Fig. 5 and 8). Fig. 5, 8 TX coil is coupled with other components on circuit board. These components convert AC (110V/220V) to DC (160V/320V) which reads on variable output voltages with respect to ground.); a case for the transmitting coil (10:12-16. Fig. 4’s WP TX unit 10 includes housing, as is standard in the art.); a battery configured to store an electrical charge transferred from the transmitting coil to the receiving coil (Walley teaches a battery configured to store charge transferred from TX coil to receiving coil. See one of batteries 66, 106, 236, or 266 in Fig. 4, 5, 9, and 10.); and a memory configured to store an electrical data and instruction transferred from the transmitting coil to the receiving coil (Fig. 4: memory 72. 4:20-29, 8:41-45. Memory 72 stores digital information and operational instructions permanently or temporarily. TX coil drives signal, RX coil receives signal, data signal goes to processing module (e.g., Fig. 4.: 70) that uses memory 72 to store information/instructions.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walley in view of US Patent No. 11056870 to Immordino Jr. (“Immordino”), US Pub. No. 20100314946 to Buddle et al. (“Buddle”), US Pub. No. 20100194207 to Graham (“Graham”), US Pub. No. 20220224134 to Bontrager et al. (“Bontrager”), WO 2019039684 A1 to Choi et al. (“Choi”), and US Pub. No. 20170302098 to Miller (“Miller”).
Walley teaches the case required by claim 1. Claims 2-8 further define the form factor of that case. Walley does not explicitly teach these form factors are a round floor rug, a round crown molding adjacent a wall and a ceiling, a ceiling lamp enclosure, a baseboard molding adjacent a wall and a floor, a wall socket accessory, a hard plastic encasement that sticks onto a television, or a hard plastic encasement that sticks onto an electronic device including an amplifier, a hard drive and speaker.
The following are taught by the prior art:
Embedding wireless power components in architectural molding, including crown molding and baseboards, for concealed home power distribution (Immordino: 2:10-67.).
Embedding transmitter coils into floor coverings such as carpets or mats, creating charging carpets (Buddle: ¶ 0031, 0032).
Embedding a wireless power transmitters into ceiling light fixtures (Graham: Abstract).
Embedding a wireless power charger in a wall socket insert (Bontrager: Abstract).
Casing a wireless power device in a hard plastic that magnetically attaches onto a television (Choi: ¶ Abstract, 0130, 0140, 0155).
Casing a wireless power device that sticks onto an electronic device including an amplifier, hard drive, and speaker (Miller: ¶ 0012-0014. Miller’s electronic devices such laptops and smarts phones inherently include an amplifier (audio amp for ringtones/media), a hard drive (flash storage/SSD), and a speaker).).
One of ordinary skill recognizes Immordino, Buddle, Graham, Bontrager, Choi, and Miller teach substantially all the limitations of claims 2-8. Furthermore, selection of shape (e.g., round floor rug) and hard plastic for electronic housing are routine matters of design choice for providing durability and electrical insulation, and for aesthetics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to house the electrical coupling device taught by Walley within any of the enclosure types recited in claims 2-8 for the following reasons:
Each of the above form factors serves the predictable purpose of physically concealing or integrating wireless power systems into existing structures or devices.
Walley’s electronics (coil, power circuit, battery, memory) are modular and could be implemented in various enclosures without changing their operation.
Modifying the external housing of an electrical coupling device for aesthetic, spatial, or structural reasons is a routine design choice that does not alter the internal circuitry.
There is clear motivation in the art to integrate wireless charging into home environments and consumer electronics in ways that minimize visible infrastructure and enable retrofit installation. Integrating Walley’s electrical coupling device into structures like rugs, molding, light fixtures, or external device casings was not only predictable but was already being implemented in the art.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walley in view of US Pub. No. 20140111019 to Roy et al. (“Roy”).
Walley discloses the electrical coupling device of claim 1, including transmitting/receiving coils and boards, but does not disclose the specific sensors, repeater functionality, or variable voltage regulation lists recited in dependent claims 9-13.
Roy teaches a comprehensive wireless energy transfer system that incorporates these missing features to enhance safety, range, and compatibility. Specifically, Roy teaches:
Using thermal imaging and infrared sensors to detect living objects versus inanimate debris based on temperature pixel patterns (¶ 0008, 0137-0145). Roy further teaches using these sensors to monitor environmental conditions and to turn on or off/reduce coupling depending upon detection of a living object to prevent safety hazard (¶ 0031, 0034, 0035).
The wireless system comprises “intermediate resonators” or “repeaters”. These repeaters are configured to receive energy from the source and re-transmit it to the device, thereby extending the inductive coupling range (¶ 0127).
Power control circuitry regulates the electrical signal to drive various loads (¶ 0126, 0177. It is Official Notice that standard consumer electronics (which Roy is designed to charge) utilize 2V (battery cell), 5V (USB), and 12V (peripherals) rails. Roy’s disclosure of variable power regulation combined with the standard knowledge of these voltage requirements teaches these limitations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walley’s electrical coupling device to include Roy’s teachings in order to address safety, range and compatibility issues.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walley in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0256585 to Partovi et al. (“Partovi”).
Walley discloses a transmitter and receiver for wireless coupling but does not explicitly teach detachable power cord from the transmitter/receiver to a standard AC outlet.
Partovi teaches a system and method for inductive charging of portable devices (Abstract). Partovi further teaches transmitter that connects to an external power source, such as a wall socket or AC adapter (¶ 0045, 0052). Partovi describes the use of standard interfaces (like USB or power jacks) which inherently utilize detachable power cords to connect the transmitter to the wall outlet (¶ 0052). Partovi further teaches a receiver includes a receiver coil for wireless charging and at least one power connection for direct charge connectivity (¶ 0128, 0135). Partovi teaches this direct connection allows the device to be charged from a “power source” (such as a standard AC wall adapter) when wireless charging is unavailable (¶ 0135). This teaches the limitation of a detachable cord extending from the receiver to a standard AC outlet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Walley’s electrical coupling device to include the detachable wired power connections taught by Partovi in order to allow the user to charge the devices from a standard AC outlet when wireless charge is otherwise unavailable, ensuring the devices remain operational in all environments.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walley in view “The Qi Wireless Power Transfer System” (“Qi Spec”) published February 2017.
Walley teaches the limitations of claim 1 from which claims 16 and 17 depend. Walley discloses an electrical coupling device comprising a transmitting coil and receiver coil, a receiver circuit including memory 72 and a rechargeable battery 66/106, and inductive power and data transfer between a WP transmit unit and a receiver unit. The receiver stores charge in a battery 66/106 and stores instructions/data in memory 72. Walley teaches active charging and real-time monitoring of power transfer (Fig. 16), and memory 72 is used in conjunction with a processing module to receive and act on data transferred from the TX unit via an NFC or shared WP coil.
Walley, however, does not teach the battery is configured to delivery its stored charge to an electronic device based on a quiescent electrical charge transfer between coils, or the memory is configured to deliver stored data and instructions based on a quiescent electrical transfer.
Qi Spec is an industry standard technical disclosure in the same field as Walley. Qi Spec teaches:
A wireless power transmitter performs an “analog ping”, which consists of very short, low-power pulses applied to the primary coil to detect the presence of power receiver without engaging in full communication (page 126, ¶ 1, 2). This process constitutes a quiescent electrical transfer.
Upon detection of this analog ping and generation of a rectified voltage at the receiver, the receiver transitions into a “selection” or “ping” phase, during which it becomes active and initiates communication or other actions, including transmitting stored configurations or identification data packets (page 44, ¶ 3).
Low power/baseline power interaction is sufficient to enable or waken the receiver’s functional systems, which implies that receiver-side logic can be configured to respond to quiescent transfer events for power and data-related behavior (page 126, ¶ 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the quiescent signal detection and trigger mechanisms taught in Qi Spec into the electrical coupling system of Walley for the following reasons:
Both Walley and Qi Spec address the same problem domain: wireless power and data transfer via inductive coupling.
The use of low-energy signals (analog pings) to initiate receiver behavior is a known and standardized technique for improving energy efficiency, reducing standby consumption, and enabling passive detection.
Modifying Walley’s receiver logic to include a trigger based on quiescent inductive field detection would have been a predictable design improvement to allow more intelligent battery and memory behavior.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851