Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 12/22/2025, claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-22 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 17-19 are amended. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 4 and 16 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn due to the explanation provided in the applicant’s remarks.
The prior objections to the Specification and Claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments and the applicant’s remarks.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Correction of the following is required:
¶ [33] should be revised to clarify the meaning of “the control circuit directs the external device to remove from the electronic device”. Further discussion is included in the 112b section included infra.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the term “time information”, used in claim 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 recites “between the external device”, which should be revised to “between [[the]] an external device”.
Claim 2, line 3 recites “with an external device”, which should be revised to “with [[an]] the external device”.
Claim 10, line 2 recites “enters a sleep mode”, which should be revised to “enters [[a]] the sleep mode”.
Claim 10, lines 3-4 recite “enters an operation mode”, which should be revised to “enters the operating mode.
Claim 22 needs to define the abbreviation “IR”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-22 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.
Claim 21 recites “the control circuit directs the external device to remove from the electronic device”. This limitation is unclear, appears incomplete, and has several potential interpretations. The examiner reviewed the specification ¶ [33], but this did not clarify the claim’s meaning.
A first possible interpretation is that the control circuit directs the external device to remove itself from within the electronic device. This interpretation does not make sense because the external device is always external to the electronic device.
A second possible interpretation is that the control circuit directs the external device to remove something from the electronic device.
A third possible interpretation is that the control circuit directs the external device to remove itself from the vicinity of the electronic device.
A fourth possible interpretation, used for examination purposes, is that the control circuit directs the external device to remove the application of the wireless signal from the electronic device.
Claim 22 is further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), and Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tan discloses an electronic device (“energy harvest terminal 100”; Fig. 1) comprising a power supply device (“100”; Fig. 1) comprising the following features.
Tan further discloses an energy harvest circuit (“antenna 1”, “radio-frequency switch 2”, “distribution circuit 20”, “RF-DC conversion circuit 3”; Figs. 1, 3) receiving a wireless signal (“radio waves” per ¶ [25]) and harvesting energy from the wireless signal to generate a first output voltage (“Vmain”; Fig. 3).
Tan further discloses a power management circuit (“DC-DC converter 4”; Figs. 1, 3) processing the first output voltage (“Vmain”) to generate a second output voltage (“Vboost”).
Tan further discloses an energy storage element (“electricity storage device” – “10” in Fig. 1, “50” in Fig. 3), which is charged by the second output voltage (“Vboost”) to provide an operation voltage (“Vboost”).
Tan further discloses the external device (“external RFID communication node”; ¶ [24-26]).
Tan further discloses a control circuit (“microprocessor 6”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28]: “controlling the overall operation of the energy harvest terminal 100”) that communicates with the external device.
Tan further discloses a load (“sensor 7” and “output device 8”; Fig. 1) operating according to the operation voltage (“Vboost”, provided to loads per ¶ [40]).
Tan does not disclose “a detection circuit detecting whether a distance between the external device and the power supply device is less than a predetermined distance”.
Tan further does not disclose the control circuit “uses the wireless signal to control a movement path of the external device in response to the distance between the external device and the power supply device being less than the predetermined distance”.
Tan further does not disclose “in response to the distance between the external device and the power supply device not being less than the predetermined distance: the detection circuit directs the control circuit to enter a sleep mode, in the sleep mode, the control circuit disables the energy harvest circuit and the power management circuit such that the energy harvest circuit and the power management circuit stop operating, in response to the distance between the external device and the electronic device being less than the predetermined distance: the detection circuit wakes up the control circuit to exit the sleep mode and enter an operating mode, in the operating mode: the control circuit directs the energy harvest circuit and the power management circuit to start operating, the control circuit emits the wireless signal to direct the external device to increase the time it stays near the power supply device.”
Oka teaches a detection circuit (“control unit 401”, located within “power reception apparatus 400”; Fig. 4; per ¶ [114-116], “401” detects whether “300” is “within a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400”) detecting whether a distance (detects whether distance between “300” and “400” is lesser than or greater than the “communicable range”) between the external device (“movable power supply apparatus 300”; Figs. 1, 3) and the power supply device (“power reception apparatus 400”; Figs. 1, 4) is less than a predetermined distance (“a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400” per ¶ [114]; “communicable range 101” is depicted for “200” in Fig. 1, but the “communicable range” for “400” is not drawn).
Oka further teaches a control circuit (“control unit 401”, located within “power reception apparatus 400”; Fig. 4; per ¶ [54]: “401 includes an arithmetic processing apparatus, such as a CPU, … and controls the operations … executing computer programs stored in the memory; per ¶ [144]: the processing operations of the full system can be performed by a single CPU executing computer programs; thus “401” can execute the processing operations of both “control unit 201” and “control unit 301”), which uses the wireless signal to control a movement path (per ¶ [10]: “300” moves to “a position where power supply to the power reception apparatus is possible”; per ¶ [11]: “300” moves within the “communicable range” of “400”; per ¶ [46]: “301” controls movement of “300”; this processing function can be incorporated into “401” per ¶ [54, 144], as discussed prior; ¶ [9]: “controlling the movable power supply apparatus to supply power from the movable power supply apparatus to the power reception apparatus”) of the external device (300) in response to the distance between the external device (300) and the power supply device (400) being less than the predetermined distance (“a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400”).
Oka further teaches the detection circuit and control circuit to enable the power supply device (400) to detect the distance from the external device (300) and to control the external device’s movement path within the predetermined distance (“communicable range”) to improve the reliability of being able to supply the power (¶ [6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply device disclosed by Tan to incorporate a detection circuit and for the control circuit to control the external device’s movement path, as taught by Oka, to improve the reliability of transferring power to the power supply device.
Knapp teaches that in response to the distance between the external device (“base station 105-b”; Fig. 2) and the power supply device (“user equipment (UE) 115-a”; Figs. 2-6) not being less than the predetermined distance (“threshold distance”; ¶ [88, 116]), the detection circuit (“location manager 835”; Fig. 8; ¶ [133]: “835 may … determine a distance between the UE and the base station”; Fig. 8’s “block diagram 800” depicts aspects of a “UE 115” per ¶ [128]) directs the control circuit (“activation controller 825”; Fig. 8; ¶ [131]: “825 may activate radio components of the UE”) to enter a sleep mode (¶ [51]: “power conservation techniques for UEs 115 include entering a power saving "deep sleep" mode”; ¶ [88]: “if UE 115-a is outside of a certain threshold distance from the … base station 105-b, UE 115-a may determine not to power on the additional radio components”; ¶ [116]: “If UE 115-a determines that its trajectory will not be within the threshold distance of … base station 105-b, UE 115-a may keep the radio components of the second RAT turned off, in a sleep or idle state”; “radio components” controlled by control circuit “825” based on outputs from detection circuit “835” per ¶ [131-133]).
Knapp further teaches in response to the distance between the external device (105-b) and the electronic device (115-a) being less than the predetermined distance (“threshold distance”), the detection circuit (835) wakes up (via communicating the location information) the control circuit (825) to exit the sleep mode (“radio components” turned off by “825”) and enter an operating mode (¶ [88]: “if UE 115-a is within a certain threshold distance from the … base station 105-b, the UE may determine to power on the additional radio components of UE 115-a”; Fig. 6, step 620: “power on radio components”).
Knapp further teaches entering the sleep mode or operating mode based on the distance between the external device and the power supply device to reduce unnecessary power consumption and preserve the battery’s stored energy (¶ [103, 105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply device disclosed by the combination of Tan and Oka to enter the sleep mode or operating mode based on the distance between the external device and the power supply device, as taught by Knapp, to reduce unnecessary power consumption and preserve the energy storage element’s stored energy.
Rev teaches that in the sleep mode (¶ [29]: “PPM 14 is kept off” because “insufficient level of harvestable power”), the control circuit (“RF source detector circuit 12”; Fig. 1) disables the energy harvest circuit (14) and the power management circuit (“PMM 14”; Fig. 1; per ¶ [26], “14” can harvest power from the RF antenna and also deliver power to a battery; thus, “14” is a combination of an energy harvest circuit and a power managements circuit) such that the energy harvest circuit (14) and the power management circuit (14) stop operating (¶ [29]: “PMM 14 is kept off”).
Rev further teaches that in the operating mode (¶ [27]: “switch the PMM 14 on” because “sufficient level of harvestable power”), the control circuit (12) directs the energy harvest circuit (14) and the power management circuit (14) to start operating (¶ [27]: “switch the PMM 14 on”).
Rev further teaches these power control operations during the sleep and operating modes to reduce the power consumption when there is insufficient received power to harvest (¶ [8]), thus lengthening the battery life (¶ [51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sleep mode and the operating mode disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, and Knapp to disable/enable the energy harvest circuit and power management circuit in accordance with the teachings of Rev, to improve the life of the energy storage element by reducing the power consumption of the power supply device when there is insufficient received power to harvest, such as when the distance between the external device and power supply device is large.
Oka further teaches that in the operating mode (operation of the “power reception apparatus 400”, as controlled by its “control unit 401”; as discussed prior, all functions of “201” and “301” can also be performed by “401”), the control circuit (401) emits the wireless signal to direct the external device (300) to increase the time (“300” stays nearby “400” to continue transferring power until, per ¶ [107], “301 determines that power supply to the power reception apparatus 400 has been completed”) it stays near (within “a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400” per ¶ [114]) the power supply device (400).
Oka further teaches controlling the transmitting external device to stay near the receiving power supply device for a longer duration to ensure the devices are nearby to support reliable and efficient transfer of power (¶ [6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit and operating mode disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to control the transmitting external device to stay near the receiving power supply device for a longer duration, as further taught by Oka, to improve the reliability and efficiency of the transfer of power.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev (as set forth prior) teaches that in response to the distance between the external device (Tan: “external RFID communication node”; Oka equivalent: “300”) and the power supply device (Tan: “100”; Oka equivalent: “400”) being less than the predetermined distance (incorporated from Oka: “a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400”), the control circuit (Tan: “6”; Oka equivalent: “401”) directs the external device to move within a predetermined area (incorporated from Oka: per ¶ [10]: “300” moves to “a position where power supply to the power reception apparatus is possible”; per ¶ [11]: “300” moves within the “communicable range” of “400”; per ¶ [46]: “301” controls movement of “300”; this processing function can be incorporated into “401” per ¶ [54, 144], as discussed prior).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), and Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-3, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Tan further discloses the control circuit (“microprocessor 6”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28]: “controlling the overall operation of the energy harvest terminal 100”) communicates (¶ [28]: “activated by an activation trigger signal”) with an external device (“external RFID communication node” per ¶ [24-26]).
Regarding claim 2, Tan does not disclose this communication is “to update the state of the load”.
Regarding claim 3, Tan further does not disclose “the control circuit updates time displayed by the load”.
Lee teaches the control circuit (“controller 480”, interfaces to “wireless communication unit 410”, “charging module 475”, and “display 431”; Fig. 4) communicates (via “wireless communication unit 410”; “short-range communication 164” shown in Fig. 1; ¶ [64]) with an external device (“external electronic device 102”; Fig. 1) to update the state (“various application execution screens” per ¶ [132]; applications receive updates through wireless communications per ¶ [93-93]) of the load (“display 160, 260, 431”, Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶ [131-132]).
Lee further teaches the control circuit (“controller 480”; Fig. 4) updates time displayed (“clock 384” is one of the “applications 370” displayed per ¶ [97]; applications receive updates through wireless communications per ¶ [93-93]) by the load (“display 160, 260, 431”, Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶ [131-132]).
Lee further teaches this to show a visual output to the user (¶ [131]), including information on the status of the execution of wireless charging (¶ [132]) and incorporating a clock application onto the electronic device (¶ [97]), which improves the usability and convenience of the electronic device (¶ [354]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to communicate with the external device and to update the time displayed by the load, as taught by Lee, to improve the usability and convenience of the electronic device.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), and Park (US 2022/0216737 A1).
Regarding Claims 6-7, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Tan does not disclose that “in response to the distance between the external device and the power supply device being less than the predetermined distance, the control circuit directs the external device to increase the intensity of the wireless signal”.
NOTE: The language “increase the intensity of the wireless signal” can be interpreted broadly. This limitation does not specify whether intensity means amplitude, frequency, duty cycle, etc. This further does not specify the intensity is necessarily measured from the external device. For example, if the external device travels to be a shorter distance from the power supply device, then the received power would be increased, even without a change in output power from the external device.
Regarding claim 7, Tan further does not disclose that “in response to the distance between the external device and the power supply device not being less than the predetermined distance, the control circuit stops communicating with the external device”.
Park teaches (see annotated Fig. 22, included infra) that in response to the distance between the external device (“wireless power transmitter 100”; Figs. 1, 4A) and the power supply device (“wireless power receiver 200”; Figs. 1, 4A) being less than the predetermined distance (“no” response to step S2260, Fig. 22; indicates the distance has decreased from “abnormal” to “normal”), the control circuit (“communications & control unit 220”; Fig. 4A; ¶ [142]: “220 may control overall operations of the wireless power transmitter”) directs the external device (“wireless power transmitter 100”) to increase the intensity (“transmission power”) of the wireless signal (Fig. 22, step S2290; “100” increases “transmission power” from decreased level of step S2230; ¶ [484]).
PNG
media_image1.png
945
1543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park further teaches that in response to the distance between the external device (100) and the power supply device (200) not being less than the predetermined distance (¶ [491]: “when the distance to the wireless power transmitter … is greater than the threshold point, the wireless power receiver may perform a connection release procedure”; “yes” response to step S2460, Fig. 24) , the control circuit (“communications & control unit 220”; Fig. 4A) stops communicating (Fig. 24, step S2480: “stop requesting power”; ¶ [33]: “connection release procedure may include: notifying connection release; and stopping power reception”) with the external device (100).
Park further teaches this to avoid unnecessary power wastage when the devices are too far apart (¶ [39]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to direct the external device to increase the intensity of the wireless signal when within the predetermined distance and to stop communicating with the external device when outside the predetermined distance, as taught by Park, to avoid unnecessary power wastage.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1), and Yoo et al. (US 2019/0148986 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 2.
Tan does not disclose that “wherein in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, the control circuit directs the external device to increase the intensity of the wireless signal, and in response to the operation voltage not being less than the threshold value, the control circuit directs the external device to respond to the intensity of the wireless signal.”
Lee further teaches that in response to the operation voltage (“charging voltage”; Fig. 13, step 1311: “determine charging voltage”; “charging voltage” is the voltage across battery “900” and is thus the same as the operation voltage used by the load “processor 850” of Fig. 10) being less than a threshold value (“reference voltage” per ¶ [139, 271-274]), the control circuit (“controller 480” within “electronic device 400”; Fig. 4) directs the external device (“external electronic device” per ¶ [271-274]; drawn as “102” in Fig. 1) to increase the intensity (Fig. 13, steps 1319 + 1321; ¶ [273]: “400 may request the external electronic device to supply a charging power corresponding to the reference voltage”; this is an increase in the output power from the external device) of the wireless signal (“short-range communication 164” in Fig. 1; ¶ [64]: “Wi-Fi, Bluetooth …”).
Lee further teaches increasing the intensity of the wireless signal in response to a low operation voltage to provide fast charging and stability of the circuit (¶ [9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to direct the external device to increase the wireless signal intensity in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, as taught by Lee, to provide fast charging and stability of the electronic device.
Yoo teaches that in response to the rectified DC voltage (¶ [105]: “rectified DC voltage”; see note included infra) not being less (¶ [105]: “over-voltage state”) than the threshold value (¶ [105]: “predetermined reference voltage”), the control circuit (“main controller 250” within “wireless power receiver 200”; Fig. 1) directs (by transmitting the “the detection result” to “100”per ¶ [105]) the external device (“wireless power transmitter 100”; Fig. 1) to respond to the intensity of the wireless signal (¶ [168]: “when an over voltage is detected, the wireless power transmitter may stop power transmission”).
NOTE: The rectified voltage used by Yoo for evaluation versus the threshold value is not the operation voltage defined by claim 1. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the teachings of Yoo with regards to the rectified voltage are also applicable to other DC voltages on the output side of the energy harvest circuit within the electronic device. Thus, the teachings of Yoo can be applied with regards to the operation voltage taught by other references already set forth.
Yoo further teaches the control circuit to direct the external device to respond to the intensity when the rectified DC voltage is not less than the threshold value to improve efficiency of the wireless power transmission (¶ [41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, and Lee for the control circuit to direct the external device to respond to the intensity when the operation voltage is not less than the threshold value, as taught by Yoo, to improve efficiency of the wireless power transmission.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0148986 A1), and Lewandowski et al. (GB 2584650 A; hereinafter “Lew”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, and Yoo teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 8.
Tan discloses the power management circuit (“DC-DC converter 4”; Figs. 1, 3).
Tan does not disclose “wherein the power management circuit detects the operation voltage, in response to the operation voltage being less than the threshold value, the power management circuit enables a trigger signal, and in response to the operation voltage not being less than the threshold value, the power management circuit disables the trigger signal”.
Lew teaches the power management circuit (“activation circuit 108”; Fig. 2) detects the operation voltage (voltage of “battery 102”; Fig. 2).
Lew further teaches in response to the operation voltage being less than the threshold value (“threshold” per page 8, lines 23-35; also, per page 36, lines 1-6: “activation event would be the falling of the, e.g. voltage level, of the e.g. battery, of the electronic device below a threshold amount”), the power management circuit (“108”) enables a trigger signal (“control signal 121”; Fig. 2; page 11, lines 3-35: “the activation circuit provides … an “enable” input signal … in response to an activation event”).
Lew further teaches in response to the operation voltage not being less than the threshold value (“threshold” per page 8; lines 23-35; page 36, lines 1-6), the power management circuit (“108”) disable the trigger signal (Fig. 3 shows “control signal 121”, also referred to as “PWR_EN”, being disabled prior to the activation event at “time 231”; thus, the trigger signal was disabled in response to the battery voltage being above the threshold).
Lew further teaches to enable/disable a trigger signal based on the operation voltage to notify the system when the operation voltage is low and proceed with an appropriate response, which extends the life of the energy storage element (page 34, lines 5-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power management circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, and Yoo to enable/disable a trigger signal based on the operation voltage, as taught by Lew, to extend the life of the energy storage element.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0148986 A1), Lewandowski et al. (GB 2584650 A; hereinafter “Lew”), and White, II et al. (US 2018/0309314 A1, hereinafter “White”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, Yoo, and Lew teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 9.
As addressed supra, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, Yoo, and Lew teaches that in response to the operation voltage not being less than a threshold value, the trigger signal is disabled. However, Tan does not teach that “in response to the trigger signal being disabled, the control circuit enters a sleep mode and the energy harvest circuit stops operating”.
As further addressed supra, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, Yoo, and Lew teaches that in response to the operation voltage being less than the threshold value, the trigger signal is enabled. However, Tan further does not teach that “in response to the trigger signal being enabled, the control circuit enters an operation mode and the energy harvest circuit starts to operate”.
White teaches that in response to the measured voltage (“induced voltage” measured by “voltage sensing circuitry” per ¶ [56]; “for powering the load” per ¶ [45]) not being less than a threshold value (¶ [59]: “safety charging condition” is not met if the “voltage level” exceeds the “second voltage/current threshold (also referred to as a maximum voltage/current threshold)”), the control circuit (“controller / detector 460” within “wireless power receiver 452”; Fig. 4) enters a sleep mode (“460”, along with the rest of “452”, enters a “protection mode”, and stops/sleeps from performing charging operations until voltage conditions are within the safe region) and the energy harvest circuit (“power receiver 470”, controlled by “460” per ¶ [46]; Fig. 4) stops operating (in “protection mode”, both “470” and “490” are stopped from powering “load 492” per ¶ [45-46]; “switching device 512” of Fig. 5A is in open-state per ¶ [55], which disables “470”).
NOTE: The measured voltage used by White for evaluation versus the threshold value is not the operation voltage defined by claim 1. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the teachings of White with regards to the measured voltage are also applicable to other measured voltages on the output side of the energy harvest circuit within the electronic device. Thus, the teachings of White can be applied with regards to the operation voltage taught by other references already set forth.
White further teaches that in response to the operation voltage (“induced voltage”) being less than a threshold value (less than “second voltage/current threshold (also referred to as a maximum voltage/current threshold” per ¶ [59]), the control circuit (“460”) enters an operation mode (“460”, along with the rest of “452”, enters a “charging mode”) and the energy harvest circuit (”470”) starts to operate (by closing “switch 512” per ¶ [55] to enable “470”).
White further teaches this to prevent operation during safety conditions, such as over-voltage, which protects the load from damages (¶ [22-23]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit and energy harvest circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, Yoo, and Lew to operate when the trigger is enabled and to sleep/stop operating when the trigger is disabled, as taught by White, to protect the load from over-voltage damages.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), and Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”).
Regarding Claim 11, Tan discloses an operation system (“energy harvest terminal 100” and the “external RFID communication node”) comprising: an external device (“external RFID communication node”; ¶ [24-26]).
Tan further discloses the operation system further comprises an electronic device (“100”; Fig. 1) communicating with the external device (“external RFID communication node”) via a wireless signal (“radio waves” per ¶ [25]) and comprising the following features.
Tan further discloses an energy harvest circuit (“antenna 1”, “radio-frequency switch 2”, “distribution circuit 20”, “RF-DC conversion circuit 3”; Figs. 1, 3) receiving the wireless signal (via “antenna 1”) and harvesting energy from the wireless signal to generate a first output voltage (“Vmain”; Fig. 3).
Tan further discloses a power management circuit (“DC-DC converter 4”; Figs. 1, 3) processing the first output voltage (“Vmain”) to generate a second output voltage (“Vboost”).
Tan further discloses an energy storage element (“electricity storage device” – “10” in Fig. 1, “50” in Fig. 3), which is charged by the second output voltage (“Vboost”) to provide an operation voltage (“Vboost”; Fig. 3).
Tan further discloses a load (“sensor 7” and “output device 8”; Fig. 1) operating according to the operation voltage (“Vboost”, provided to loads per ¶ [40]).
Tan does not disclose “a detection circuit detecting a distance between the external device and the electronic device”.
Tan further does not disclose the control circuit “uses the wireless signal to control a movement path of the external device in response to the distance between the external device and the electronic device being less than a predetermined distance”.
Tan further does not disclose “in response to the distance between the external device and the electronic device not being less than the predetermined distance: the detection circuit directs the control circuit to enter a sleep mode, in the sleep mode, the control circuit disables the energy harvest circuit and the power management circuit such that the energy harvest circuit and the power management circuit stop operating, in response to the distance between the external device and the electronic device being less than the predetermined distance: the detection circuit wakes up the control circuit to exit the sleep mode and enter an operating mode, in the operating mode: the control circuit directs the energy harvest circuit and the power management circuit to start operating, the control circuit emits the wireless signal to direct the external device to increase the time it stays near the electronic device.”
Oka teaches a detection circuit (“control unit 401”, located within “power reception apparatus 400”; Fig. 4; per ¶ [114-116], “401” detects whether “300” is “within a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400”) detecting a distance (detects whether distance between “300” and “400” is lesser than or greater than the “communicable range”) between the external device (“movable power supply apparatus 300”; Figs. 1, 3) and the electronic device (“power reception apparatus 400”; Figs. 1, 4).
Oka further teaches a control circuit (“control unit 401”, located within “power reception apparatus 400”; Fig. 4; per ¶ [54]: “401 includes an arithmetic processing apparatus, such as a CPU, … and controls the operations … executing computer programs stored in the memory; per ¶ [144]: the processing operations of the full system can be performed by a single CPU executing computer programs; thus “401” can execute the processing operations of both “control unit 201” and “control unit 301”), which uses the wireless signal to control a movement path (per ¶ [10]: “300” moves to “a position where power supply to the power reception apparatus is possible”; per ¶ [11]: “300” moves within the “communicable range” of “400”; per ¶ [46]: “301” controls movement of “300”; this processing function can be incorporated into “401” per ¶ [54, 144], as discussed prior; ¶ [9]: “controlling the movable power supply apparatus to supply power from the movable power supply apparatus to the power reception apparatus”) of the external device (300) in response to the distance between the external device (300) and the electronic device (400) being less than the predetermined distance (“a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400”).
Oka further teaches the detection circuit and control circuit to enable the electronic device (400) to detect the distance from the external device (300) and to control the external device’s movement path within the predetermined distance (“communicable range”) to improve the reliability of being able to supply the power (¶ [6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device disclosed by Tan to incorporate a detection circuit and for the control circuit to control the external device’s movement path, as taught by Oka, to improve the reliability of transferring power to the electronic device.
Knapp teaches that in response to the distance between the external device (“base station 105-b”; Fig. 2) and the electronic device (“user equipment (UE) 115-a”; Figs. 2-6) not being less than the predetermined distance (“threshold distance”; ¶ [88, 116]), the detection circuit (“location manager 835”; Fig. 8; ¶ [133]: “835 may … determine a distance between the UE and the base station”; Fig. 8’s “block diagram 800” depicts aspects of a “UE 115” per ¶ [128]) directs the control circuit (“activation controller 825”; Fig. 8; ¶ [131]: “825 may activate radio components of the UE”) to enter a sleep mode (¶ [51]: “power conservation techniques for UEs 115 include entering a power saving "deep sleep" mode”; ¶ [88]: “if UE 115-a is outside of a certain threshold distance from the … base station 105-b, UE 115-a may determine not to power on the additional radio components”; ¶ [116]: “If UE 115-a determines that its trajectory will not be within the threshold distance of … base station 105-b, UE 115-a may keep the radio components of the second RAT turned off, in a sleep or idle state”; “radio components” controlled by control circuit “825” based on outputs from detection circuit “835” per ¶ [131-133]).
Knapp further teaches in response to the distance between the external device (105-b) and the electronic device (115-a) being less than the predetermined distance (“threshold distance”), the detection circuit (835) wakes up (via communicating the location information) the control circuit (825) to exit the sleep mode (“radio components” turned off by “825”) and enter an operating mode (¶ [88]: “if UE 115-a is within a certain threshold distance from the … base station 105-b, the UE may determine to power on the additional radio components of UE 115-a”; Fig. 6, step 620: “power on radio components”).
Knapp further teaches entering the sleep mode or operating mode based on the distance between the external device and the electronic device to reduce unnecessary power consumption and preserve the battery’s stored energy (¶ [103, 105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device disclosed by the combination of Tan and Oka to enter the sleep mode or operating mode based on the distance between the external device and the electronic device, as taught by Knapp, to reduce unnecessary power consumption and preserve the energy storage element’s stored energy.
Rev teaches that in the sleep mode (¶ [29]: “PPM 14 is kept off” because “insufficient level of harvestable power”), the control circuit (“RF source detector circuit 12”; Fig. 1) disables the energy harvest circuit (14) and the power management circuit (“PMM 14”; Fig. 1; per ¶ [26], “14” can harvest power from the RF antenna and also deliver power to a battery; thus, “14” is a combination of an energy harvest circuit and a power managements circuit) such that the energy harvest circuit (14) and the power management circuit (14) stop operating (¶ [29]: “PMM 14 is kept off”).
Rev further teaches that in the operating mode (¶ [27]: “switch the PMM 14 on” because “sufficient level of harvestable power”), the control circuit (12) directs the energy harvest circuit (14) and the power management circuit (14) to start operating (¶ [27]: “switch the PMM 14 on”).
Rev further teaches these power control operations during the sleep and operating modes to reduce the power consumption when there is insufficient received power to harvest (¶ [8]), thus lengthening the battery life (¶ [51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sleep mode and the operating mode disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, and Knapp to disable/enable the energy harvest circuit and power management circuit in accordance with the teachings of Rev, to improve the life of the energy storage element by reducing the power consumption of the electronic device when there is insufficient received power to harvest, such as when the distance between the external device and power supply device is large.
Oka further teaches that in the operating mode (operation of the “power reception apparatus 400”, as controlled by its “control unit 401”; as discussed prior, all functions of “201” and “301” can also be performed by “401”), the control circuit (401) emits the wireless signal to direct the external device (300) to increase the time (“300” stays nearby “400” to continue transferring power until, per ¶ [107], “301 determines that power supply to the power reception apparatus 400 has been completed”) it stays near (within “a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400” per ¶ [114]) the electronic device (400).
Oka further teaches controlling the transmitting external device to stay near the receiving electronic device for a longer duration to ensure the devices are nearby to support reliable and efficient transfer of power (¶ [6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit and operating mode disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to control the transmitting external device to stay near the receiving electronic device for a longer duration, as further taught by Oka, to improve the reliability and efficiency of the transfer of power.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 11.
Tan does not disclose “the external device is a cleaning robot”.
Oka teaches an operation system (Fig. 1) wherein the external device (“movable power supply apparatus 300”; Figs. 1, 3) is a cleaning robot (¶ [41]: “may be any of a self-traveling cleaner”; ¶ [129]: “300 … can execute functions … such as a self-traveling cleaner and a self-traveling robot”) used to wirelessly transmit power (¶ [78]: “300 to travel to a position where it can supply power to … 400”) to an electronic device (“power reception apparatus 400”; Figs. 1, 4; per ¶ [32]: may be “a digital camera”, “a mobile telephone”, “an information terminal”, etc.).
PNG
media_image2.png
927
1051
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oka further teaches harvesting power wirelessly received from a cleaning robot’s wireless signal for the advantage of enabling the external device, i.e. cleaning robot, to be able to move near the electronic device which receives the wireless power (¶ [7]), which improves the reliability of being able to supply the power (¶ [6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the external device disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to be a cleaning robot, as taught by further taught by Oka, to improve the reliability of transferring power to the electronic device by enabling the external device to move closer.
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), and Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 11.
Tan further discloses the control circuit (“microprocessor 6”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28]: “controlling the overall operation of the energy harvest terminal 100”) communicates with the external device (“external RFID communication node” per ¶ [24-26]) via the wireless signal (“radio waves” per ¶ [25]).
Tan does not disclose this communication is “to obtain a time message”.
Tan further does not disclose “updating time information displayed by the load according to the time message, the external device is a wireless access point which is connected to the internet and obtains the time message via the internet, and the external device provides the time message to the control circuit”.
Lee teaches the control circuit (“controller 480”, interfaces to “wireless communication unit 410”, “charging module 475”, and “display 431”; Fig. 4) communicates (via “wireless communication unit 410”; “short-range communication 164” shown in Fig. 1; ¶ [64]) with the external device (“wireless communication system … an access point, or the like” per ¶ [120]) via the wireless signal to obtain a time message (“clock 384” is one of the “applications 370” displayed per ¶ [97]; applications receive updates through wireless communications per ¶ [93-93]).
Lee further teaches the control circuit (“480”) updating time information (information shown on GUI for “clock 384” application) displayed by the load (“display 160, 260, 431”, Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶ [131-132]) according to the time message (“clock 384” application and/or an update thereof).
Lee further teaches the external device is a wireless access point (“access point” per ¶ [120]) which is connected to the internet (“access point” and “internet server” are both part of the “wireless communication system” per ¶ [120-121]) and obtains the time message (“clock 384” application and/or an update thereof) via the internet (“internet server” on the “wireless communication system”).
Lee further teaches the external device (“access point” per ¶ [120]) provides the time message to the control circuit (“480” receives wireless communications through its interface with “wireless communication unit 410”; Fig. 4).
Lee further teaches this for the advantage of incorporating a clock application onto the electronic device (¶ [97]), which improves the usability and convenience of the electronic device (¶ [354]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operation system disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev for the control circuit to obtain a time message from a wireless access point and update the displayed time information, as taught by Lee, to improve the usability and convenience of the operation system.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, and Lee teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 12.
Tan does not disclose that “in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, the control circuit uses the wireless signal to direct the external device to increase the intensity of the wireless signal.”
Lee further teaches that in response to the operation voltage (“charging voltage”; Fig. 13, step 1311: “determine charging voltage”; “charging voltage” is the voltage across battery “900” and is thus the same as the operation voltage used by the load “processor 850” of Fig. 10) being less than a threshold value (“reference voltage” per ¶ [139, 271-274]), the control circuit (“controller 480” within “electronic device 400”; Fig. 4) uses the wireless signal (“short-range communication 164” in Fig. 1; ¶ [64]: “Wi-Fi, Bluetooth …”) to direct the external device (“external electronic device” per ¶ [271-274]; drawn as “102” in Fig. 1) to increase the intensity (Fig. 13, steps 1319 + 1321; ¶ [273]: “400 may request the external electronic device to supply a charging power corresponding to the reference voltage”; this is an increase in the output power from the external device) of the wireless signal (164).
Lee further teaches increasing the intensity of the wireless signal in response to a low operation voltage to provide fast charging and stability of the circuit (¶ [9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, and Lee to direct the external device to increase the intensity in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, as further taught by Lee, to provide fast charging and stability of the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 11.
Tan does not disclose that “in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, the control circuit uses the wireless signal to direct the external device to increase the intensity of the wireless signal.”
Lee further teaches that in response to the operation voltage (“charging voltage”; Fig. 13, step 1311: “determine charging voltage”; “charging voltage” is the voltage across battery “900” and is thus the same as the operation voltage used by the load “processor 850” of Fig. 10) being less than a threshold value (“reference voltage” per ¶ [139, 271-274]), the control circuit (“controller 480” within “electronic device 400”; Fig. 4) uses the wireless signal (“short-range communication 164” in Fig. 1; ¶ [64]: “Wi-Fi, Bluetooth …”) to direct the external device (“external electronic device” per ¶ [271-274]; drawn as “102” in Fig. 1) to increase the intensity (Fig. 13, steps 1319 + 1321; ¶ [273]: “400 may request the external electronic device to supply a charging power corresponding to the reference voltage”; this is an increase in the output power from the external device) of the wireless signal (164).
Lee further teaches increasing the intensity of the wireless signal in response to a low operation voltage to provide fast charging and stability of the circuit (¶ [9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to direct the external device to increase the intensity in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, as taught by Lee, to provide fast charging and stability of the electronic device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1), and Ziv et al. (US 2013/0207599 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, and Lee teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 13.
Tan does not disclose that “in response to the operation voltage not being less than the threshold value, the control circuit stops communicating with the external device”.
Ziv teaches that in response to the operation voltage (“battery charge level”, based on “voltage feedback 208”; Fig. 2) not being less than the threshold value (Fig. 1, “graph 130” shows curve “132” for “first device 104” reaches “battery charge level” of 100%, upon reaching 100%, the first device is not less than the threshold of 100%), the control circuit (“controller 210” within “receiver 202”; Fig. 2; “104” also has a “first receiver 106” of “104” per ¶ [12]) stops communicating (Fig. 4, step 420: “get out of resonance (disappear)”; per Fig. 5, disappearing is equivalent to “communication lost”; ¶ [16]: “after the first device 104 is fully charged, … may disconnect from charging”; ¶ [16, 47]: making “104” become “transparent” to the source Tx) with the external device (“transmitter 242”; Fig. 2).
Ziv further teaches for the control circuit to stop communicating with the external device when the operation voltage is not less than the threshold value because operation voltage is sufficiently high and the electronic device does not need to receive more power (¶ [14]), which allows any other electronic and no more charging is currently needed, which helps the external device to supply power to other electronic devices more quickly (¶ [14]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, and Lee to stop communicating with the external device when the operation voltage is not less than the threshold value, as taught by Ziv, to help the external device to supply power to other electronic devices more quickly when the operation voltage is sufficiently high to not require any more power to be received.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1), Ziv et al. (US 2013/0207599 A1), and Yoo et al. (US 2019/0148986 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, and Ziv teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 14.
Tan does not disclose that “in response to the operation voltage not being less than the threshold value, the control circuit directs the external device to remove from the electronic device.”
Yoo teaches that in response to the rectified DC voltage (¶ [105]: “rectified DC voltage”; see note included infra) not being less (¶ [105]: “over-voltage state”) than the threshold value (¶ [105]: “predetermined reference voltage”), the control circuit (“main controller 250” within “wireless power receiver 200”; Fig. 1) directs (by transmitting the “the detection result” to “100”per ¶ [105]) the external device (“wireless power transmitter 100”; Fig. 1) to remove the application of the wireless signal (¶ [168]: “when an over voltage is detected, the wireless power transmitter may stop power transmission”; interpretation discussed supra in the 112b section) from the electronic device (“wireless power receiver 200”; Fig. 1).
NOTE: The rectified voltage used by Yoo for evaluation versus the threshold value is not the operation voltage defined by claim 11. However, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the teachings of Yoo with regards to the rectified voltage are also applicable to other DC voltages on the output side of the energy harvest circuit within the electronic device. Thus, the teachings of Yoo can be applied with regards to the operation voltage taught by other references already set forth.
Yoo further teaches the control circuit to direct the external device to remove the application of the wireless signal from the electronic device when the rectified DC voltage is not less than the threshold value to improve efficiency of the wireless power transmission (¶ [41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, and Ziv for the control circuit to direct the external device to respond to the intensity when the operation voltage is not less than the threshold value, as taught by Yoo, to improve efficiency of the wireless power transmission.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1), Ziv et al. (US 2013/0207599 A1), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0148986 A1), and Govindaraj (US 2018/0198321 A1; hereinafter “Gov”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, Ziv, and Yoo teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 21.
Tan does not disclose “the wireless signal is a IR signal”.
Gov teaches the wireless signal is a IR signal (¶ [18]: “examples of wireless power transfer signals include electromagnetic waves, …, and infrared”; ¶ [30]: “infrared signals can be converted to electrical energy using various light-conversion components, such as photodiodes”).
Gov teaches harvesting the energy from IR signals in addition to other types of wireless power transfer signals to be more adaptable to obtain energy from a wide variety of wireless signals, which broadens the variety of operation systems the electronic device is able to operate in.
Gov teaches harvesting the energy from IR signals because the associated energy harvesting components (photodiodes) can be very small (< 1 mm per ¶ [47]), thus reducing the size of the electronic device compared to other types of larger energy harvesting architectures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify operation system disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, Rev, Lee, Ziv, and Yoo to communicate via IR signals, as taught by Gov, to minimize the size of the electronic device, thus enabling the electronic device to fit in more applications.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), and Park (US 2022/0216737 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the operation system as claimed in claim 11.
Tan does not disclose that “in response to the distance between the external device and the electronic device not being less than the predetermined distance, the control circuit stops communicating with the external device.”
Park teaches that in response to the distance between the external device (“wireless power transmitter 100”; Figs. 1, 4A) and the electronic device (“wireless power receiver 200”; Figs. 1, 4A) not being less than the predetermined distance (¶ [491]: “when the distance to the wireless power transmitter … is greater than the threshold point, the wireless power receiver may perform a connection release procedure”; “yes” response to step S2460, Fig. 24), the control circuit (“communications & control unit 220”; Fig. 4A) stops communicating (Fig. 24, step S2480: “stop requesting power”; ¶ [33]: “connection release procedure may include: notifying connection release; and stopping power reception”) with the external device (“100”).
Park further teaches the control circuit stops communicating with the external device when the devices are beyond the predetermined distance to avoid unnecessary power wastage when the devices are too far apart (¶ [39]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control circuit disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to stop communicating with the external device in response to the distance between devices not being less than the predetermined distance, as taught by Park, to avoid unnecessary power wastage when the devices are too far apart.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), and Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”).
Regarding Claim 19, Tan discloses a power supply method (¶ [28]: “controlling the overall operation of the energy harvest terminal”) for applied in a power supply device (combo of “1”, “2”, “20”, “3”, “4”, “10”, “5”, “6”; Fig. 1) and providing an operation voltage (“Vboost”; Fig. 3; provided to loads per ¶ [40]) to a load (“sensor 7” and “output device 8”; Fig. 1) and comprising the following.
Tan further discloses receiving a wireless signal (“radio waves” per ¶ [25]; received via “antenna 1”).
Tan further discloses harvesting energy from the wireless signal (“radio waves”) provided by an external device to generate a first output voltage (“Vmain”; Fig. 3).
Tan further discloses processing the first output voltage (“Vmain”) to generate a second output voltage (“Vboost”; Fig. 3).
Tan further discloses charging an energy storage element (“electricity storage device” – “10” in Fig. 1, “50” in Fig. 3) using the second output voltage (“Vboost”).
Tan further discloses the voltage (“Vboost”) stored in the energy storage element is provided as the operation voltage (“Vboost”, provided to loads per ¶ [40]).
Tan further discloses outputting the operation voltage (“Vboost”) to the load (7, 8).
Tan does not disclose “detecting a distance between the external device and the power supply device: in response to the distance between the external device and power supply device not being less than a predetermined distance: stopping harvesting the energy from the wireless signal; and stopping processing the first output voltage; in response to the distance between the external device and the power supply device being less than the predetermined distance: starting to harvest the energy from the wireless signal; starting to process the first output voltage; and direct the external device to increase the time it stays near the power supply device.”
Oka teaches detecting a distance (per ¶ [114-116], “401” detects whether “300” is “within a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400”; thus, the method detects whether distance between “300” and “400” is lesser than or greater than the “communicable range”) between the external device (“movable power supply apparatus 300”; Figs. 1, 3) and the power supply device (“power reception apparatus 400”; Figs. 1, 4).
Oka further teaches in response to the distance between the external device (300) and the power supply device (400) being less (per ¶ [114-116], “401” detects whether “300” is within the “communicable range”; thus, the distance between is less than that of “101”) than the predetermined distance (“a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400” per ¶ [114]; “communicable range 101” is depicted for “200” in Fig. 1, but the “communicable range” for “400” is not drawn), direct the external device (300) to increase the time (“300” stays nearby “400” to continue transferring power until, per ¶ [107], “301 determines that power supply to the power reception apparatus 400 has been completed”) it stays near (within “a communicable range of the power reception apparatus 400” per ¶ [114]) the power supply device (400).
Oka further teaches detecting the distance between devices and controlling the transmitting external device to stay near the receiving power supply device for a longer duration to ensure the devices are nearby to support reliable and efficient transfer of power (¶ [6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply method disclosed by Tan to detect the distance between devices and to control the transmitting external device to stay near the receiving power supply device for a longer duration, as taught by Oka, to improve the reliability and efficiency of the transfer of power.
NOTE: Though the sleep mode and operating mode are not explicitly claimed in claim 19, they serve as linking conditions between the Knapp and Rev teaching references.
Knapp teaches that in response to the distance between the external device (“base station 105-b”; Fig. 2) and the power supply device (“user equipment (UE) 115-a”; Figs. 2-6) not being less than a predetermined distance (“threshold distance”; ¶ [88, 116]), the power supply device enters a sleep mode (see note, included supra; ¶ [51]: “power conservation techniques for UEs 115 include entering a power saving "deep sleep" mode”; ¶ [88]: “if UE 115-a is outside of a certain threshold distance from the … base station 105-b, UE 115-a may determine not to power on the additional radio components”; ¶ [116]: “If UE 115-a determines that its trajectory will not be within the threshold distance of … base station 105-b, UE 115-a may keep the radio components of the second RAT turned off, in a sleep or idle state”; “radio components” controlled by control circuit “825” based on outputs from detection circuit “835” per ¶ [131-133]).
Knapp further teaches in response to the distance between the external device (105-b) and the electronic device (115-a) being less than the predetermined distance (“threshold distance”), the power supply device enters an operating mode (see note, included supra; ¶ [88]: “if UE 115-a is within a certain threshold distance from the … base station 105-b, the UE may determine to power on the additional radio components of UE 115-a”; Fig. 6, step 620: “power on radio components”).
Knapp further teaches entering the sleep mode or operating mode based on the distance between the external device and the power supply device to reduce unnecessary power consumption and preserve the battery’s stored energy (¶ [103, 105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply method disclosed by the combination of Tan and Oka to enter the sleep mode or operating mode based on the distance between the external device and the power supply device, as taught by Knapp, to reduce unnecessary power consumption and preserve the energy storage element’s stored energy.
Rev teaches in the sleep mode, stopping harvesting the energy from the wireless signal; and stopping processing the first output voltage (¶ [29]: “PPM 14 is kept off” because “insufficient level of harvestable power”; per ¶ [26], “14” can harvest power from the RF antenna and also deliver power to a battery; thus, “14” is a combination of an energy harvest circuit and a power managements circuit).
Rev further teaches in the operating mode, starting to harvest the energy from the wireless signal; starting to process the first output voltage (¶ [27]: “switch the PMM 14 on” because “sufficient level of harvestable power”; per ¶ [26], “14” can harvest power from the RF antenna and also deliver power to a battery; thus, “14” is a combination of an energy harvest circuit and a power managements circuit).
Rev further teaches these power control operations during the sleep and operating modes to reduce the power consumption when there is insufficient received power to harvest (¶ [8]), thus lengthening the battery life (¶ [51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply method disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, and Knapp to disable/enable the energy harvest circuit and power management circuit in accordance with the teachings of Rev, to improve the life of the energy storage element by reducing the power consumption of the power supply device when there is insufficient received power to harvest, such as when the distance between the external device and power supply device is large.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0305583 A1, hereinafter “Tan”) in view of Okamoto (US 2018/0287424 A1, hereinafter “Oka”), Knapp (US 2019/0320358 A1), Revelant et al. (US 2021/0135490 A1; hereinafter “Rev”), and Lee et al. (US 2021/0288526 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev teaches the power supply method as claimed in claim 19.
Tan does not disclose “detecting the operation voltage, wherein in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, the intensity of the wireless signal is increased”.
Lee teaches detecting the operation voltage (Fig. 13, step 1311: “determine charging voltage”; “charging voltage” is the voltage across battery “900” and is thus the same as the operation voltage used by the load “processor 850” of Fig. 10).
Lee further teaches that in response to the operation voltage (“charging voltage”) being less than a threshold value (“reference voltage” per ¶ [139, 271-274]), the intensity of the wireless signal is increased (Fig. 13, steps 1319 + 1321; ¶ [273]: “400 may request the external electronic device to supply a charging power corresponding to the reference voltage”; this is an increase in the output power from the external device).
Lee further teaches increasing the intensity of the wireless signal in response to a low operation voltage to provide fast charging and stability of the circuit (¶ [9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power supply method disclosed by the combination of Tan, Oka, Knapp, and Rev to detect the operation voltage and increase the wireless signal intensity in response to the operation voltage being less than a threshold value, as taught by Lee, to provide fast charging and stability of the circuit, which includes the energy storage element and the load.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859