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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication interface” “output interface” “cooking appliance” in claims 1 and 12 and associated dependents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-7 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0279002 to Partovi.
Partovi teaches:
Regarding claims 1 and 12
A wireless power transmission apparatus (100), comprising: a plurality of cooking zones (104); a communication interface configured to communicate with a cooking appliance (¶ [0039-0040]; multiple exemplary means are discussed including Bluetooth/NFC/logic-circuits); an output interface configured to display information regarding the cooking appliance (¶ ]0090]); a wireless power transmitter comprising a plurality of working coils (104) corresponding to the plurality of cooking zones (area on top of pad adjacent 104), and an inverter circuit configured to drive the plurality of working coils (110); and at least one processor (¶ [0180]) configured to: control, upon detecting a first wireless communication signal transmitted from the cooking appliance through the communication interface (¶ [0056 and 0057]; e.g. NFC or Bluetooth), the inverter circuit to drive the plurality of working coils to generate a magnetic field according to a plurality of power transmission patterns that are different (¶ [0056 and 0057] “powered according to device needs”- since each device will have unique needs this is considered a “pattern” for that device that is different ), receive a second wireless communication signal from the cooking appliance through the communication interface, the second wireless communication signal comprising information regarding a cooking zone (¶ [0056 and 0057] i.e. through the “separate data coil”), among the plurality of cooking zones, corresponding to a power transmission pattern detected at a location of the cooking appliance (¶ [0056 and 0057] the “charging algorithm” is determined based on the data received), among the plurality of power transmission patterns, and identification information regarding the cooking appliance (¶ [0056 and 0057]); and control the output interface to output, based on the second wireless communication signal, the information regarding the cooking zone at the location of the cooking appliance, among the plurality of cooking zones, and the identification information regarding the cooking appliance ( [0056 and 0057]).
Further explanation of the pattern architecture is found in paragraphs [0141-0145] which are stated to be applicable to any of the architectures for determining device needs as well.
Interpretation notes:
The device is referred to as a “mobile device” it is noted that the “mobile device” may be “kitchen appliances, cooking pots and pans” (see ¶ [0103]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13
Wherein the plurality of power transmission patterns are set differently based on at least a power level (“powered according to device needs”).
Regarding claims 3 and 14
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the inverter circuit to supply power of a preset level to the cooking appliance (¶ [0056 and 0057] “according to device needs” ) to drive the communication interface of the cooking appliance (¶ [0056 and 0057]); and when the communication interface of the cooking appliance is driven, receive the first wireless communication signal transmitted from the communication interface of the cooking appliance (¶ [0056 and 0057]; “wherein the circuitry containing the ID and the necessary information is powered either by the mobile device or remotely by the mobile device charger”)
Regarding claims 4 and 15
further comprising a current sensor (¶ [0141] “current sensor”) working coils, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: in response to receipt of a user input, control the inverter circuit to transmit, to the cooking appliance, power to detect an induction-heating container comprising a magnetic material; and upon the power being transmitted to the cooking appliance, control the current sensor to detect that the cooking appliance which comprises the magnetic material is on a top plate of the wireless power transmission apparatus (“The pad will include a method of detecting the presence … this can be achieved through …current sensor”), based on the current values of the plurality of working coils measured by the current sensor (¶ [0141-0147]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16
when the first wireless communication signal is not received from the cooking appliance within a certain time after detection that the cooking appliance is on the top plate of the wireless power transmission apparatus, identify a type of the cooking appliance as a general induction-heating container (¶ [0104 and 0105]).
Interpretation notes: 0104 and 0105 discusses that the cooking pots/pans may simply be direct heating or may have “dials or controls”. If it is simply a direct heating without dials or controls there are no control signals or RFID tags or other patterns by which to send a return signal from the cooking pots/pans as such in order to heat them it must be done without a communication signal from the cooking appliance. The term “within a certain time” is met by the fact that there will necessarily be some lag or “time” from when the cooking appliance is placed on the pad and when heating begins.
Regarding claims 6 and 17
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: in response to detection of the first wireless communication signal transmitted from the communication interface of the cooking appliance, identify a type of the cooking appliance as being enabled to perform communication, wherein the type of the cooking appliance is at least one of a coffee maker, an electric rice cooker, a kettle, a blender, or a toaster. (¶ [0104] at least “blender” is specifically disclosed – the blender may be “the type of cooking appliance enabled for communication as it returns a signal of what it is).
Regarding claim 7
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the output interface to output a graphical user interface (GUI) corresponding to the identification information regarding the cooking appliance (¶ [0090] “messages”).
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) 8-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi.
Regarding claim 8, 9, 18 and 19
Partovi teaches all of the limitations as discussed above and further teaches control power based on the appliance type (¶ [0104-0105]) and sending messages to the user based on information contained in the second wireless communication signal (¶ [0090]).
Further the examiner takes official notice that it is well known to provide users means of controlling a power level or operation via messages or apps and is well known to allow for a standby mode on low-power (i.e. waiting for the start signal) which allows for a delayed start (e.g. such function is nearly ubiquitous in modern coffee makers, dishwashers, ovens).
Partovi fails to specifically teach: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: when the second wireless communication signal is received from the cooking appliance, operate in a power transmission standby mode to transmit power to the cooking appliance through the cooking zone and based on communication connection information included in the second wireless communication signal, perform a communication connection with the cooking appliance; control the inverter circuit to transmit, to a pickup coil of the cooking appliance, a first level of power to maintain the communication connection with the cooking appliance; and in response to receipt of an operation command for the cooking appliance from a user, control the inverter circuit to transmit, to the cooking appliance, a second level of power to operate the cooking appliance, wherein the first level of power is lower than the second level of power.
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Partovi to arrive at the claimed invention as it is known in the art to transmit messages to a user allowing for a delayed starting operation via a lower powered standby mode and then a higher powered operation mode and this has the known benefit of providing convenience of operation start to the end user.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 20
Partovi teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, and further already teaches that the inverter circuit is controlled to drive the plurality of working coils to generate the magnetic field according to the plurality of power transmission patterns (“based on the appliance type”) and to output a notification to the user (¶ [0090]).
Partovi never specifically says the output notification is for the purpose of having the user check the location of the cooking appliance when information has not been received after a certain time or when a release of communication has occurred.
The Examiner takes official notice that providing notifications to users to check on a system after a communication break/fault is old and ubiquitous. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Partovi such that the user messages include messages relating to the user checking the location of the cooking appliance when location information after a certain time for the obvious benefit of alerting the user to the fault so that it can be investigated/fixed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Edward "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761