DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimada (WO 2013/005725 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shimada teaches a wireless power transmitter (2) (Figs. 1-3 of provided reference) comprising:
a plate (top of 2);
a resonant coil (32; pg. 5 of provided reference, paragraph starting with “The charging unit 15…”);
a short-range communication module (32) configured to communicate with a plurality of wireless power receivers (1, 3, 4, 5) which receive power from the resonant coil (pg. 5, paragraph starting with “In addition…”); and
a processor (33) communicatively coupled with the short-range communication module (pg. 7, paragraph starting with “The control unit 33…”),
wherein the processor is configured to:
detect a first wireless power receiver being inclined to the plate or making a preset motion above the plate among the plurality of wireless power receivers (pg. 7, “The detection unit 41…”),
identify the first wireless power receiver as a master wireless power receiver to indicate states of charge of the plurality of wireless power receivers (on the master device’s display) (pg. 9, “When management device…” through pg. 10, “Upon receiving…”), and
send the first wireless power receiver a signal indicating that the first wireless power receiver is identified as the master wireless power receiver (pg. 9, “When management device…” through pg. 10, “Upon receiving…”).
Regarding claim 6, Shimada teaches the processor is configured to:
receive inclination information (i.e. position) of the plurality of wireless power receivers, and
detect the first wireless power receiver based on the inclination information of the plurality of wireless power receivers. (First two paragraphs of pg. 16)
Regarding claim 7, Shimada teaches the processor is configured to:
receive information about priorities of the plurality of wireless power receivers from the master wireless power receiver (pg. 6, “Further, under the…”),
calculate required power for each of plurality of wireless power receivers based on the priority information (based on charging capacity; pg. 14, the last three paragraphs), and
send information (i.e. the power signal when it’s their time to be charged) about the calculated required power to each of the plurality of wireless power receivers.
Regarding claim 8, Shimada teaches the processor is configured to:
obtain information about priorities of the plurality of wireless power receivers from the master wireless power receiver (pg. 6, “Further, under the…”), and
control transmission power of the resonant coil based on the priority information (i.e. charging order; pg. 6, “Further, under the…”).
Regarding claim 12, Shimada teaches the processor is configured to identify the first wireless power receiver as the master wireless power receiver even based on the first wireless power receiver determined as not being inclined to the plate after the first wireless power receiver is identified as the master wireless power receiver (i.e. when the master device is moved from one position on the plate to another; pg. 12, two paragraphs starting with “[Case in Which Device…”).
Regarding claim 13, Shimada teaches the processor is configured to:
transmit, to a second wireless power receiver, a command signal (requesting information about receiver) to provide an interface for designating the second wireless power receiver as the master wireless power receiver in response to establishment of communication connection with the second wireless power receiver through the short-range communication module (pg. 9, “As shown in Fig. 6…”; i.e. authentication communication),
receive a first signal transmitted from the second wireless power receiver (pg. 15, second to last paragraph), and
identify the second wireless power receiver as the master wireless power receiver in response to receiving the first signal (pg. 15, last paragraph),
wherein the first signal is transmitted in response to the second wireless power receiver receiving a user input to designate the second wireless power receiver as the master wireless power receiver (pg. 8, “The management device determining unit 45…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (WO 2013/005725 A1) and Kim et al. (2021/0351630). Shimada teaches the wireless power transmitter as described above.
Regarding claim 2, Shimada teaches the processor configured to:
receive information about amounts of received power of the plurality of wireless power receivers (i.e. changes to the charged amount of the receiver’s battery; pg. 8, “The device list creation unit 44…”).
Shimada teaches detecting the position of receivers with respect to the transmitter plate/resonant coil (via 41), but fails to explicitly teach determining a coupling coefficient value between each of the receivers and the resonant coil based on the amounts of received power. Kim teaches a similar wireless power transmitter (Fig. 1) to that of Shimada. Kim teaches determining a coupling coefficient value between each of the plurality of wireless power receivers (102) and the resonant coil (101/103) based on the amounts of received power of the plurality of wireless power receivers and an amount of transmitted power of the resonant coil ([0066]-[0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a coupling coefficient between each of the receivers and the resonant coil of the transmitter, since it involves a mere simple substitution of one method for another for determining the location/distance from the resonant coil each of the plurality of receivers is, which would allow for determining where the receivers are located and would assist in determining the master wireless power receiver.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Shimada teaches detecting the first wireless power receiver based on the location of the receiver relative to the resonant coil (second paragraph on pg. 16). The combination of Shimada and Kim would then teach detecting the first wireless power receiver in response to a coupling coefficient value between the first wireless power receiver and the resonant coil being maintained within a preset value/range for a preset period of time (i.e. the time it takes for the receiver to be detected; and that coupling coefficient value being the value that corresponds to the detected location in Shimada).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (WO 2013/005725 A1) and Behzadi et al. (2018/0351373). Shimada teaches the wireless power transmitter as described above. Shimada teaches the processor being configured to detect a second wireless power receiver being inclined to the plate or making a preset motion above the plate is detected after the first wireless power receiver is detected (pg. 11, “[When a Management Apparatus…” and the next few paragraphs).
Shimada fails to explicitly teach identifying a wireless power receiver having a display of a larger size as the master wireless power receiver. Behzadi teaches a similar wireless power transmitter system (Fig. 6) to that of Shimada. Behzadi teaches the idea of when two wireless power receivers are detected on a transmitter, identifying the wireless power receiver having a display of a larger size as the master wireless power receiver ([0224]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the wireless power receiver having a display of a larger size as the master wireless power receiver, since it would allow for more easily viewable information provided to the user.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (WO 2013/005725 A1) and Lee et al. (2020/0091779). Shimada teaches the wireless power transmitter as described above. Shimada fails to explicitly teach receiving location information of a user and identify a wireless power receiver located closer to the user as the master wireless power receiver. Lee teaches a similar wireless power transmitter system (i.e. Fig. 11) to that of Shimada. Lee teaches detecting two wireless receivers inclined to that wireless transmitter plate; receiving location information of a user (based on which user and the location of each receiver relative to each other and the user) from the receivers; and identifying a wireless power receiver located closer to the user as the master wireless power receiver among the first and second wireless power receivers ([0086], [0087]; Fig. 4, operation 403). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify a wireless receiver located closer to the user as the master wireless power receiver, so it would allow for the display data to be more easily viewed by the user.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (WO 2013/005725 A1) and Colosimo et al. (10,277,046). Shimada teaches the wireless power transmitter as described above. Shimada fails to explicitly teach when two receivers are detected that are associated with different users, identifying a first master receiver and a second master receiver. Colosimo teaches a similar wireless power transmitter (i.e. Fig. 4) to that of Shimada. Colosimo teaches detecting two wireless power receivers on the same plate, and identifying the first wireless power receiver associated with a first user as a first master wireless power receiver for indicating a state of charge of a wireless power receiver associated with the first user among the plurality of wireless power receivers, and
identify the second wireless power receiver associated with a second user as a second master wireless power receiver for indicating a state of charge of a wireless power receiver associated with the second user among the plurality of wireless power receivers (Col. 9, lines 50-67; i.e. there are two hero devices on the same charging plate and each has a different user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the two wireless power receivers associated with different users as first and second master wireless power receivers, so that the information associated with receivers associated with different users aren’t being shared with the wrong users and each user can have access to only receivers that are associated with them.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the references of record, either alone, or in combination, do not teach or suggest at least the limitations of: Regarding claim 5, detecting the first wireless power receiver in response to a coupling coefficient value between the first wireless power receiver and the resonant coil changing being in a preset pattern.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
8/31/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights