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 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 6, 10 and 16 are currently amended.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10 Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous rejection does not disclose the claims as amended. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference GRAHAM (US 2015/0280442 A1). Please see new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 5-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR et al. (US 2019/0238000 A1, hereinafter SALVEKAR) in view of GRAHAM (US 2015/0280442 A1, hereinafter GRAHAM).
Regarding claims 1 and 10 (claim 1 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SALVEKAR discloses a device comprising:
a first transmission coil, wherein the first transmission coil generates a first magnetic field toward a charging region with a first flux axis (See Fig.1, Item#42 and Par.29, discloses a plurality of coils, Par.17 discloses each of the plurality of coils [including a first coil of the plurality of coils] generate first magnetic field towards the charging region);
a second transmission coil adjacent to the first transmission coil, wherein the second transmission coil generates a second magnetic field toward the charging region (See Fig.1, Item#42 and Par.29, discloses a plurality of coils, Par.17 discloses each of the plurality of coils [including a second coil of the plurality of coils] generate second magnetic field towards the charging region); and
a management device in communication with the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil (See Fig.1, Item#16, discloses a control circuitry), the management device configured to:
determine a presence of a receiving coil proximate to a first transmission coil and a second transmission coil (See Fig.1, Item#42 and Par.27, discloses that “during object detection and characterization operations, external object measurement circuitry 41 can be used to make measurements on coils 42 to determine whether any devices 24 are present on device 12”);
determine a proportional alignment value of at least the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil with the receiving coil (See Par.32, discloses determining the coupling factor for each of the coil of the wireless power transmitting coils 42); and
select and drive at least one of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil according to the proportional alignment values (See Par.33, discloses that appropriate coils are selected to be activated based on the coupling factor).
However, SALVEKAR does not disclose the second flux axis is non-parallel to the first flux-axis.
GRAHAM discloses a wireless charging device comprising a first transmission coil which generates a first magnetic field towards a charging region with a first flus axis and a second transmission coil which generates a second magnetic field towards the charging region with a second flux axis that is non-parallel to the first flux axis (See Figs.2A-2B and Pars.53, 55, disclose the plurality of coils 210a-210e are arranged along the curvature of the charging surface, the magnetic flux of each coil is perpendicular to the surface of the coil and the magnetic flux lines are not parallel but cross one another at some point).
SALVEKAR and GRAHAM 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 SALVEKAR with the teachings of GRAHAM by placing the coils in non-planar arrangement for the benefit of allowing the user to simply place the device in the charger without the need for carefully place the receiving coil to match the charging coil (See GRAHAM, Par.53).
Regarding claim 2, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the management device is a central processing unit (See SALVEKAR, Fig.1, Item#16 discloses control circuitry and Par.14, discloses the control circuitry include a CPU).
Regarding claim 5, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first transmission coil is in a first plane and the second transmission coil is substantially co-planar with the first plane (See SALVEKAR, Par.31, discloses the coils are arranged in a single layer i.e. coplanar).
Regarding claim 6, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first flux axis and the second flux axis cross one another (See GRAHAM, Figs.2A-2B and Pars.53, 55, disclose the plurality of coils 210a-210e are arranged along the curvature of the charging surface, the magnetic flux of each coil is perpendicular to the surface of the coil and the magnetic flux lines cross one another at some point).
Regarding claim 9, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1, as discussed above wherein the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil are part of a transmission coil array with no less than three transmission coils (See SALVEKAR, Par.31, discloses each layer may have any suitable number of coils… at least 5 coils).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR in view of GRAHAM and in further view of BASAK et al. (US 2022/0247229 A1, hereinafter BASAK).
Regarding claim 3, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, However SALVEKAR and GRAHAM do not explicitly disclose further comprising:
a first controller in data communication with the management device and configured to drive the first transmission coil; and a second controller in data communication with the management device and configured to drive the second transmission coil.
BASAK discloses a wireless charging system wherein the charging surface is divided into separate area or zones (See Fig.1, discloses a first zone 130 and a second zone 150), the first zone comprising a first controller (See Fig.1, Item#131, discloses a first local controller) in data communication with a management device (See Fig.1, Item#170, discloses a master controller in data communication with the first controller as indicated by the data line) and configured to drive the first transmission coil (See Par.59, discloses each of the local controllers may control eh primary coils to generate the ping signal); and
The second zone comprising a second controller (See Fig.1, Item#132, disclose the second local controller) in data communication with the management device (See Fig.1, Item#170, discloses a master controller in data communication with the second controller as indicated by the data line) and configured to drive the second transmission coil (See Par.59).
SALVEKAR, GRAHAM and BASAK 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 SALVEKAR and GRAHAM with the teachings of BASAK by using the master and local controller structure for separate zones for the benefit of overseeing the coordination of activating the coils in the separate zones to mitigate and undesirable interference (See BASAK, Par.62).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR in view of GRAHAM and in further view of OLD et al. (US 2015/0196229 A1, hereinafter OLD).
Regarding claim 4, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, However SALVEKAR and GRAHAM do not disclose wherein the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil have an aspect ratio no less than 5:1.
OLD teaches that the area and aspect ratio of the coil affect the mutual inductance between two antennas (See Par.83).
SALVEKAR and GRAHAM and BASAK are analogous art since they all deal with wireless transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention disclosed by SALVEKAR and GRAHAM with the teachings of BASAK by trying different aspect ratios for each of the first coil and the second coil for the benefit of reducing mutual inductance between the coils to improve system stability and efficiency.
Claim(s) 7, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR in view GRAHAM and in further view of KURS et al. (US 2013/0200721 A1, hereinafter KURS).
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 15 (Claim 7 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the management device is further configured to drive a selected transmission coil of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil according to the proportional alignment value (See SALVEKAR, Par.33, discloses that appropriate coils are selected to be activated based on the coupling factor).
However, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM do not disclose grounding an unselected transmission coil.
KURS teaches a wireless charging system wherein unselected resonators are grounded (See Par.174).
SALVEKAR, GRAHAM and KURS 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 SALVEKAR and GRAHAM with the teachings of KURS by grounding the unselected transmission coils for the benefit of reducing interference (the examiner explains that ungrounded inactive coils pickup energy from neighboring active coils and create unwanted parasitic emissions which interfere with other electromagnetic sensitive components and grounding inactive coils helps suppress the EMI. Regarding claim 15, the examiner explains that SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose determining the coupling factor of each coil and selecting the appropriate coils. i.e. coils with high coupling coefficient/alignment. It is implicit that the unselected coils are coils with a coupling coefficient/alignment below an optimal level).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR in view of GRAHAM and in further view of STINGU et al. (US 2020/0259369 A1, hereinafter STINGU).
Regarding claim 8, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the device of claim 1 as discussed above, However, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM do not disclose further comprising a visual indicator in data communication with the management device and configured to be activated according to the proportional alignment value.
STINGU teaches a wireless charging device comprising a visual indicator in data communication with the management device and configured to be activated according to the proportional alignment value (See Pars.94 and 273, disclose a visual indicator for indicating the direction of the location of maximum coupling coefficient).
SALVEKAR, GRAHAM and STINGU 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 SALVEKAR and GRAHAM with the teachings of STINGU by the coupling visual indicator for the benefit of alerting the user that maximum coupling is not present and provide instruction to improve coupling to increase the charging efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR in view of GRAHAM and in further view of WANG et al. (US 2019/0123581 A1, hereinafter WANG).
Regarding claim 12, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM disclose the method of claim 10 as discussed above,
However, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM do not disclose wherein driving at least one of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil includes driving both of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil according to the proportional alignment value.
WANG teaches a multi-coil wireless charging system, wherein the coupling factor for each coil is detected (See Par.32, disclosed evaluating the coupling coefficient of each coil, the coupling factor is affected by the distance between the transmitting coil and the receiving coil. i.e. larger distance= weaker coupling) and driving both of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil according to the proportional alignment value (See Par.33, discloses one or more coils may be powered up and that the coils of the second group [Fig.3, Coils, B, D, F and H] are driven at a higher power than coils of the first group [A, C, E and g] since coils having lower coupling strength need more power to achieve the same coupling effect.
SALVEKAR, GRAHAM and WANG 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 SALVEKAR and GRAHAM with the teachings of WANG by driving both of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil according to the proportional alignment value for the benefit of increasing the charging speed by charging the electronic device using two coils each provided with the appropriate amount of power to achieve the desired coupling effect.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALVEKAR in view GRAHAM and in further view of WU et al. (US 2015/0155095 A1, hereinafter WU).
Regarding claims 13-14, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM discloses the method of claim 10 as discussed above, However, SALVEKAR and GRAHAM do not disclose wherein driving at least one of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil according to the proportional alignment value includes driving at least one of the first transmission coil and the second transmission coil in a linear relationship to the proportional alignment value.
WU teaches a wireless charging system and method comprising driving a transmission coil in linear relationship to the proportional alignment (See Fig.5, discloses measuring the coupling coefficient in Step#506 and determining if coupling is above a threshold. When the coupling coefficient is judged to be below the threshold, the method loops back to step 504 and increases the amount of energy. Par.120, discloses the energy increase may be done linearly or non-linearly).
SALVEKAR, GRAHAM and WU 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 SALVEKAR and GRAHAM with the teachings of WU by trying a finite set of solutions (linear or non-linear energy increase) for the benefit of improving the charging efficiency.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOODCHILD (US 2021/0152037 A1, hereinafter GOODCHILD) in view of JUNG (US 2019/0148987 A1, hereinafter JUNG) and in further view of GRAHAM.
Regarding claim 16, GODCHILD discloses a method comprising:
transmitting a first detection pulse with a first transmission coil of a charging device (See Fig.13, Step#1306, disclose transmitting passive ping to detect an object);
detecting an object proximate the first transmission coil (See Fig.13, Step#1308);
failing to receive an expected response at the first transmission coil (See Fig.13, Step#1312, disclose generating digital pings by each of the coils that are determined to correspond to an electronic device. Fig.15 and Par.75, disclose that during the digital ping, if no response is received at step#1508, this may be an indication that the device is a non-receiving device);
establishing a first foreign object lockout at the first transmission coil (See Fig.15, Steps#1508-1514, discloses continuing the loop of analog and digital pings and evaluating the response until the number of digital pings exceed a NACK threshold after which the coil which receives no response is placed in a lockout step#1516 until the object is removed); and
transmitting a second presence detection pulse with a second transmission coil of the charging device (See Fig.13, Step#1312-1318 and Par.67, disclose that all the active coils are pinged i.e. when a first coil does not respond, the remaining coils are pinged).
However, GOODCHILD does not disclose a timeout for the first coil when no response is received and wherein the first transmission coil has a first flux axis that is non-parallel to a second flux axis of the second transmission coil.
JUNG teachings a wireless power transmission method comprising transmitting digital pings and when a foreign object is detected (See Fig.9, discloses transmitting 3 digital pings at interval T_D, followed by determination that a foreign object exists when a number of digital pings is sent and no response is received [Par.211-212]. After a foreign object detection is determined, a digital ping timeout takes place, and analog pings are transmitted for a period of time (i.e. timeout period) [Par.214] followed by the transmission of another digital ping).
GOODCHILD and JUNG 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 GOODCHILD with the teachings of JUNG by establishing a timeout period when no response is received in response to the digital ping for the benefit of preventing unnecessary waste of power and minimizing heat generated due to the foreign object (See JUNG, Par.218).
However, GOODCHILD and JUNG do not disclose wherein the first transmission coil has a first flux axis that is non-parallel to a second flux axis of the second transmission coil.
GRAHAM discloses a wireless charging device comprising a first transmission coil which generates a first magnetic field towards a charging region with a first flus axis and a second transmission coil which generates a second magnetic field towards the charging region with a second flux axis that is non-parallel to the first flux axis (See Figs.2A-2B and Pars.53, 55, disclose the plurality of coils 210a-210e are arranged along the curvature of the charging surface, the magnetic flux of each coil is perpendicular to the surface of the coil and the magnetic flux lines are not parallel but cross one another at some point).
SALVEKAR, JUNG and GRAHAM are analogous art since they both all 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 SALVEKAR and JUNG with the teachings of GRAHAM by placing the coils in non-planar arrangement for the benefit of allowing the user to simply place the device in the charger without the need for carefully place the receiving coil to match the charging coil (See GRAHAM, Par.53).
Regarding claim 17, GOODCHILD, GRAHAM and JUNG disclose the method of claim 16 as discussed above, further comprising:
detecting an object proximate the second transmission coil; failing to receive an expected response at the second transmission coil; and establishing a second foreign object timeout at the second transmission coil (See claim 16 rejection above, the examiner explains that the invention disclosed by GOODCHILD, GRAHAM and JUNG, discloses placing any of the plurality of pinged coils in a timeout when it is pinged and no response is received to prevent unnecessary waste of power and minimizing heat generated due to the foreign object).
Regarding claim 20, GOOODCHILD, GRAHAM and JUNG disclose the method of claim 16 as discussed above, further comprising:
receiving an expected response at the second transmission coil; and driving the second transmission coil with a transmission current (See GOODCHILD, Fig.13, Step#1312, disclose that after the digital ping, in step#1316 negotiation and calibration takes place when a response is received followed power transfer in step 1320. JUNG also discloses in Fig.14, Step#S1404-S1411, disclose when a signal strength response is received then the process moves to wireless charging).
Regarding claims 18-19, GOOODCHILD, GRAHAM and JUNG disclose the method of claim 17 as discussed above, However, GOOODCHILD, GRAHAM and JUNG do not explicitly disclose wherein establishing the second foreign object timeout at the second transmission coil includes resetting the first foreign object timeout at the first transmission coil or wherein establishing the second foreign object timeout at the second transmission coil includes establishing a total foreign object timeout for the charging device.
However the examiner explains that 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 GOOODCHILD, GRAHAM and JUNG such that setting a second foreign object timeout at the second transmission coil includes resetting the first foreign object timeout for the benefit of continuing to attempt a connection by at least one the coils when the other coil fails or establishing the second foreign object timeout at the second transmission coil includes establishing a total foreign object timeout for the charging device for the benefit of preventing unnecessary waste of power and minimizing heat generated due to the foreign object (See JUNG, Par.218)
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