DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 1-28 are currently pending, claims 1, 11, 15 and 25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous prior art rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of HA et al. (US 2023/0216353 A1).
Regarding claims 11-14 and 25-28, applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the added limitation of claims 11 and 25 “…communicate with the at least one mobile device via the BLE communication module to receive information about the at least one mobile device, the information indicating at least one of a type or size of the mobile device or a type or size of a battery of the mobile device…”. The examiner respectfully disagrees and explains that KIM discloses receiving via communication with the electronic device the required voltage and current. This is interpreted to mean that the size of battery of the mobile device is received i.e. a 3.7 to 8.4V battery (See Par.53). The rejection of claims 11-14 and 25-28 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US 2017/0302097 A1, hereinafter KIM).
Regarding claims 11 and 25 (claim 11 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), Kim discloses a system comprising:
a base station for wirelessly charging at least one mobile device (See Fig.3A, Item#110 and Figs.5A-5D, disclose a charging base for charging a plurality of electronic devices 512 and 514), the base station including a plurality of charging coils (See Fig.3A, Items#310 and 311, disclose an induction coil and a resonant coil), a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication module (See Fig.3A, Item#340), and a control module (See Fig.3A, Item#350, discloses a controller) configured to:
communicate with the at least one mobile device via the BLE communication module to receive information about the at least one mobile device device (See Par.115, discloses receiving a communication signal from an electronic device to receive its broadcasting signal indicating that it is a resonance device), the information indicating at least one of a type or size of the mobile device or a type or size of a battery of the mobile device (See Par.53, discloses the charger receives voltage or current information from the electronic device and the charger adjusts the power supplied based on the received battery information);
select at least one charging coil from the plurality of charging coils based on the received information about the at least one mobile device (See Par.115, discloses determining that the electronic device is a resonant device); and
activate the at least one charging coil to charge the at least one mobile device (See Par.117, discloses power is transmitted to the electronic device using the resonance coil 310).
Regarding claims 12 and 26 (claim 12 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM discloses the system of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the control module is further configured to receive information about at least one battery of the at least one mobile device via communication with the at least one mobile device and to output the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device (See Fig.1A and Pars.57 and 96, discloses the charger comprising a communication unit 113 and a display to display the status of an electronic device. Fig. 3B, discloses the communication unit comprising a BLE).
Regarding claim 14, KIM discloses the system of claim 12 as discussed above, wherein the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device includes at least one of a low battery status and a last time the battery was charged. (See KIM, Par.96, discloses red LED when the battery is not fully charged, interpreted as low battery status).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of YOON.
Regarding claims 13 and 27 (claim 13 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM discloses the system of claim 12 as discussed above, However, KIM does not disclose wherein the base station is located in a vehicle and the base station is configured to output the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device to a display screen of the vehicle.
YOON discloses a wireless charger for charging an electronic device, the charger is located in a vehicle and configured to output information about the electronic device battery on the display screen of the vehicle (See Par.3).
KIM and YOON are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KIM with the teachings of YOON by displaying information on a vehicle display screen for the benefit of alerting a driver to the charging status of an electronic device being charged in a vehicle environment.
Regarding claim 28, KIM and YOON disclose the method of claim 27 as discussed above, wherein the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device includes at least one of a low battery status and a last time the battery was charged (See KIM, Par.96, discloses red LED when the battery is not fully charged, interpreted as low battery status).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 15-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2017/0302097 A1, hereinafter KIM) in view of HA et al. (US 2023/0216353 A1, hereinafter HA).
Regarding claims 1 and 15 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM discloses a system comprising:
a base station for wirelessly charging at least one mobile device (See Fig.3B, Item#110 and Figs.5A-5D, disclose a charging base for charging a plurality of electronic devices 512 and 514), the base station including a plurality of charging coils (See Fig.3B, discloses a first induction coil 311 and a second induction coil 312) and a control module (See Fig.3B, Item#350 and Fig.1, Item#112, disclose a controller) configured to:
activate at least one first charging coil of the plurality of charging coils to charge the at least one mobile device (See Par.150, discloses transmitting a power beacon to each induction coil);
monitor at least one electrical characteristic of the at least one first charging coil while charging the at least one mobile device (See Par.150, discloses determining the amount of change in impedance in the first coil);
activate at least one second charging coil of the plurality of charging coils to charge the at least one mobile device (See Par.150, discloses activating the second induction coil by providing a power beacon);
monitor the at least one electrical characteristic of the at least one second charging coil while charging the at least one mobile device (See Par.150, discloses determining the amount of change in impedance in the second coil);
compare the at least one electrical characteristic monitored during the first time period with the at least one electrical characteristic monitored during the second time period; determine between one of the at least one first charging coil and the at least one second charging coil which is more efficient for charging the mobile device based on the comparison (See Par.150, discloses comparing the change in impedance in each of the first induction coil and the second induction coil and selecting the coil based on the comparison by selecting the coil with the lowest impedance change); and
select the more efficient one of the at least one first charging coil and the at least one second charging coil for charging the at least one mobile device during a third time period after the first and second time periods based on the determination (See Par.150, discloses selecting the coil with the least amount of impedance change. Par.140 discloses determining the coil with the optimal charging efficiency).
However, KIM does not explicitly disclose the first charging coil is activated during a first time period and the second charging coil is activated during a second time period and monitoring, with at least one of a current sensor, a voltage sensor, or a power sensor, at least one electrical characteristic of the at least one first charging coil while charging the at least one mobile device during the first time period (KIM discloses judging the efficiency of the coils by comparing impedance change as discussed above).
HA discloses a wireless charging device comprising a plurality of charging coil, the plurality of charging coils are activated during different periods, a voltage sensor is used to measure an electrical characteristic of each of the coils during the different periods and a charging coil is selected based on the comparison results between the voltage of each coil during the different charging periods (See HA Figs.13-14 and Pars.103, disclose performing ping on multiple coils, Steps#1301/1401], measuring current or voltage [Steps#1305/1405] of each of the coils [Steps#1307/1407]. Fig.11B, discloses that each coil is individually activated, then the process moves to the next coil until all coils are activated and their values [voltage/current] are measured).
KIM and HA are analogous art since they both deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KIM with the teachings of HA by activating the charging coils at different time periods for the benefit of avoiding measurement interference that may be cause by activating all the transmitting coils simultaneously and also using current or voltage measurement instead of impedance change at the transmitting coils for the benefit of providing faster response times and measurements which have higher noise immunity.
Regarding claims 2 and 16 (claim 2 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, KIM and HA do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mobile device includes a key fob.
However, the examiner explains that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The disclosed charging structure is capable of charging a key fob comprising a wireless charge receiving coil.
Regarding claims 3 and 17 (claim 3 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the at least one mobile device includes at least one of a smartphone and a smartwatch (See KIM, Fig.5D, Item#512, discloses a smartphone).
Regarding claims 4 and 18 (claim 4 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the base station is configured to simultaneously two different devices one of them is a smartphone (See KIM, Fig.5D).
However, KIM and HA do not disclose the system simultaneously charger charge a key fob and a smartphone.
KIM further discloses adjusting the power supplied to the electronic device based on received information. Therefore, the charger is capable of outputting different charging power to different electronic devices (See Par.53).
However, the examiner explains that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The disclosed charging structure is capable of charging a key fob comprising a wireless charge receiving coil at the same time as charging a smartphone.
Regarding claims 5 and 19 (claim 5 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the base station is configured to simultaneously charge each of a smartphone and a smartwatch (See KIM, Fig.5D, discloses simultaneously charging a smartphone 512 and a smartwatch 514).
Regarding claims 6 and 20 (claim 6 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the base station further includes a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) module to communicate with the at least one mobile device using BLE to receive information about at least one battery of the at least one mobile device and to output the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device (See KIM, Fig.1A and Pars.57 and 96, discloses the charger comprising a communication unit 113 and a display to display the status of an electronic device. Fig. 3B, discloses the communication unit comprising a BLE).
Regarding claims 8 and 22 (claim 8 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 6 as discussed above, wherein the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device includes at least one of a low battery status (See KIM, Par.96, discloses red LED when the battery is not fully charged, interpreted as low battery status).
Claim(s) 9 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of HA and in further view of SHIN et al. (US 2017/0288739 A1, hereinafter SHIN).
Regarding claims 9 and 23 (claim 9 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 6, However, KIM and HA do not disclose wherein the base station is configured to determine at least one of a location and a distance of one of the at least one mobile device to the base station based on signal strength of BLE signals received from the one of the at least one mobile device.
SHIN discloses a wireless charging system wherein a wireless charging transmitter determines the distance of the electronic device relative to the wireless charging transmitter based on a received communication signal strength (See Par. 103, discloses the first wireless power transmitting device 401 may also determine the distance to the electronic device 403 based on the strength of the communication signal from the electronic device 403. For example, the communication signal may include information about a strength at the time of transmission. The first wireless power transmitting device 401 may also determine the distance to the electronic device 403 by comparing the strength at the time of transmission, contained in the communication signal, with the strength of the communication signal received. Par.62 discloses the communication may comprise Bluetooth low energy (BLE)).
KIM, HA and SHIN are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed KIM and HA with the teachings of SHIN by using communication signal strength to determine the distance of one of the at least one mobile device to the base station based on signal strength of BLE signals received from the one of the at least one mobile device for the benefit of controlling the antennas to direct power towards the electronic device (See SHIN, Par.65).
Claim(s) 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of HA and in further view of HIRAMATSU (US 2023/0104039 A1, hereinafter HIRAMATSU).
Regarding claims 10 and 24 (claim 10 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, KIM and HA do not disclose wherein the base station further includes a near-field communication (NFC) module to communicate with a NFC enabled device to prohibit charging the at least one mobile device in response to the NFC enabled device communicating with the NFC module of the base station.
HIRAMATSU discloses a wireless charging system wherein the wireless charging transmitter comprises a NF module and uses the NFC module to detect a foreign object and prohibit charging (See Par.70, discloses when the TX has a Near Field Communication (NFC) communication function, foreign object detection processing may be executed using an opposing device detection function using an NFC standard. Fig.5B, Steps#S513-S516, disclose stopping power transmission when a foreign object is detected).
KIM, HA and HIRAMATSU are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KIM and HA with the teachings of HIRAMATSU by adding NFC module to detect the presence of a foreign object comparing an NFC enabled device for the benefit of protecting an NFC enabled foreign object (such as a credit card) against damage caused by wireless charging.
Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of HA and in further view of YOON et al. (US 2013/0088195 A1, hereinafter YOON).
Regarding claims 7 and 21 (claim 7 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), KIM and HA disclose the system of claim 6, However, KIM and HA do not disclose wherein the base station is located in a vehicle and the base station is configured to output the information about the at least one battery of the at least one mobile device to a display screen of the vehicle.
YOON discloses a wireless charger for charging an electronic device, the charger is located in a vehicle and configured to output information about the electronic device battery on the display screen of the vehicle (See Par.3).
KIM, HA and YOON are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KIM and HA with the teachings of YOON by displaying information on a vehicle display screen for the benefit of alerting a driver to the charging status of an electronic device being charged in a vehicle environment.
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 AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights