DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/103,547 filed on January 30, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are still pending, with claims 1, 9-10 and 16 being currently amended.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112(f) Interpretations
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 9 are sufficient such that claims 1 and 9 are no longer interpreted under 112(f).
Response to Arguments
On pages 5-6 of the remarks filed January 30, 2026, Applicant argues:
In contrast, Kim describes a wireless power transmitter that may include a resonator and a voltage source that may be used to transmit power wirelessly. (Kim, Abstract). Kim additionally describes a power transfer phase that may include a normal mode, a boost mode, or a reduction mode. (Kim, paragraph 0060). As noted in paragraphs 0061- 0063, the different modes may be implemented via changes made to a duty cycle. Based on Kim's discussion in paragraph 0058, Kim appears to describe using such modes based on an identified power demand.
Applicant submits that Kim's description of such duty cycle modification does not disclose determining a power transfer mode, as currently claimed. While Kim describes modification of a duty cycle used by a power transmitter, such a description of a duty cycle used for power transfer does not disclose dynamically determining a power transfer mode by selecting one of a plurality of different types of modes, such as a duty control mode, a voltage control mode, and a frequency control mode, where such selection is made based on operational parameters and configuration parameters of a transmission circuit.
Accordingly, Kim does not disclose "a controller configured to determine a power transfer mode used by the power inverter, the determining of the power transfer mode comprising selecting one of a duty control mode, a voltage control mode, or a frequency control mode based, at least in part, on a plurality of operational parameters and a plurality of configuration parameters of the transmission circuit", as currently claimed.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that Kim does not anticipate claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as currently amended. Independent claims 10 and 16 have been amended to recite similar features and are patentable for at least the same reasons. The dependent claims are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are patentable over the art of record, and allowance of claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-17 and 20 is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim explicitly discloses the use of either a mode where the “frequency…is varied” (frequency control) or where the duty cycle is varied “The reduction mode is, for example, an operation … wireless power transmitter 1 may adjust the duty cycle or adjust the operating frequency” (duty cycle may be adjusted as an alternative to adjusting the operating frequency, thus “duty control”). Examiner notes that the claim does not require that all three of the modes are available to the controller, only that at least one of the modes is selected by the controller, which Kim teaches as indicated above and in the updated claim rejections below.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US PGPUB 2018/0152051.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kim discloses a system for wireless charging [figs. 1 & 7], the system comprising:
a power inverter configured to generate a power transfer signal based, at least in part, on a plurality of transmission parameters [fig. 7, transmitter 100 has a converter 110 which is an inverter, which generates signals based on signals from the controller 200; pars. 96-99 & 101-102];
a transmission circuit configured to wirelessly transmit the power transfer signal [fig. 7; resonator 120; pars. 98-100];
and a controller configured to determine a power transfer mode used by the power inverter, the determining of the power transfer mode comprising selecting one of a duty control mode, a voltage control mode, or a frequency control mode based, at least in part, on a plurality of operational parameters and a plurality of configuration parameters of the transmission circuit [pars. 60, 62-65, 79, 82 & 100-102; the power transfer mode is determined based on operating parameters such as distance between TX and RX or required power (fig. 5, situations a3, b3 and c3; pars. 80-82) and configuration parameters such as “boost” or “reduction” mode; the power transfer mode may be in a “frequency control mode” in a “normal mode” or a “duty control mode” in a “reduction mode”; Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted as requiring as a minimum a “selection” of one of the three modes (duty control mode, a voltage control mode, or a frequency control mode, but not as requiring that the controller is capable of all three control modes)].
Regarding claim 10, the method steps disclosed therein are deemed as being inherent in the assembly and operation of the prior art reference(s) applied above, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements recited in the method claim, as pointed out in the above rejection of claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kim discloses wherein the determining of the power transfer mode further comprises determining the plurality of transmission parameters [pars. 60, 62-65, 79, 82, 87, 96-97 & 100-102; transmission parameters including the frequency and voltage are determined according to the transmission mode].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kim discloses wherein the plurality of transmission parameters represents at least one of a voltage level, a frequency, a phase, and a duty cycle [pars. 96-97 & 100-102; voltage and frequency].
Regarding claims 6, Kim discloses wherein the controller is configured to control an inverter stage included in the power inverter [fig. 7; pars. 60, 62-65, 79, 82, 87, 96-97 & 100-102; controller 200 controls inverter 110].
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the power inverter is a single-stage inverter [fig. 7; par. 99].
Regarding claims 8, 15 and 20, Kim discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: change the power transfer mode in response to identifying one or more changes in the plurality of operational parameters [par. 81-82 & 85-86; in response to changes in operation parameters, such as the distance between RX and TX or the amount of power needed the operation mode is chosen].
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the one or more changes in operational parameters comprises a change in load associated with the transmission circuit [pars. 286-288].
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a device for wireless charging, the device comprising:
a controller comprising processing elements to determine a power transfer mode used by a power inverter the determining of the power transfer mode comprising selecting one of a duty control mode, a voltage control mode, or a frequency control mode based, at least in part, on a plurality of operational parameters and a plurality of configuration parameters of the transmission circuit [pars. 60, 62-65, 79, 82 & 100-102; the power transfer mode is determined based on operating parameters such as distance between TX and RX or required power (fig. 5, situations a3, b3 and c3; pars. 80-82) and configuration parameters such as “boost” or “reduction” mode; the power transfer mode may be in a “frequency control mode” in a “normal mode” or a “duty control mode” in a “reduction mode”; Examiner notes that the claim is being interpreted as requiring as a minimum a “selection” of one of the three modes (duty control mode, a voltage control mode, or a frequency control mode, but not as requiring that the controller is capable of all three control modes)]’
and duty control logic comprising processing elements configured to generate at least one control signal for the power inverter based on the determined power transfer mode [pars. 60, 62-65, 79, 82 & 100-102; based on the power transfer mode the duty cycle is adjusted].
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses wherein the determining of the power transfer mode further comprises determining a plurality of transmission parameters representing at least one of a voltage level, a frequency, a phase, and a duty cycle [pars. 60, 62-65, 79, 82, 87, 96-97 & 100-102; transmission parameters including the frequency and voltage are determined according to the transmission mode].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 4-5, 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPUB 2018/0152051 in view of Ettes et al. US PGPUB 2020/0280220.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kim discloses wherein the power transfer mode is determined based, at least in part, on a designated mapping.
However, Ettes discloses a wireless charging system [fig. 1; abs.] wherein the power transfer mode is determined based, at least in part, on a designated mapping [par. 197; a look up table based on operating parameters to determining the transfer mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to further include wherein the power transfer mode is determined based, at least in part, on a designated mapping for the purpose of determining suitable power transfer parameters in advance, as taught by Ettes (par. 197).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ettes as applied in claims 4 and 13, respectively, discloses wherein the designated mapping is a look-up-table configured to return a power transfer mode based on one or more operational parameters [par. 197; a look up table based on operating parameters to determining the transfer mode].
Regarding claim 18, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the power transfer mode is determined based, at least in part, on a designated mapping, and wherein the designated mapping is a look-up- table configured to return a power transfer mode based on one or more operational parameters.
However, Ettes discloses a wireless charging system [fig. 1; abs.] wherein the power transfer mode is determined based, at least in part, on a designated mapping, and wherein the designated mapping is a look-up- table configured to return a power transfer mode based on one or more operational parameters [par. 197; a look up table based on operating parameters to determining the transfer mode].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to further include wherein the power transfer mode is determined based, at least in part, on a designated mapping, and wherein the designated mapping is a look-up- table configured to return a power transfer mode based on one or more operational parameters for the purpose of determining suitable power transfer parameters in advance, as taught by Ettes (par. 197).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US PGPUB 2018/0152051 in view of Kim et al. US PGPUB 2012/0155133 (Kim II).
Regarding claim 19, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller comprises a pulse width modulator.
However, Kim II discloses a wireless charging system [fig. 1; abs.] wherein the controller comprises a pulse width modulator [par. 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to further include wherein the controller comprises a pulse width modulator for the purpose of controlling the length of the turn-on portion of the period, as taught by Kim II (par. 11).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the “pulse width modulator” limitation of claim 19 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed November 5, 2025. Applicant adequately traversed. Thus, the Kim II reference is furnished, but the rejection does not constitute a new grounds of rejection. See MPEP 2144.03.
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 DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights