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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments on pages 10-11 of the remarks that SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA does not disclose the recitation “the resonant network is disconnected from the load and the current flow out of the resonant network is shunted when no power is applied to the first and second pairs of diodes”, in primary reference SANDNER, when the protection mode as described in paragraphs 0053-0054 is activated, “no power is applied to the first and second pairs of diodes” due to the “low-ohmic connection between nodes 18A and 18B”, effectively shunting the current flow from receiver coil 32 (Fig. 3) to the load 8 (Fig. 1). Including the resonant network of secondary reference ICHIKAWA in the charging circuit of SANDNER during the disclosed protection mode would provide the resonant network disconnected from the load and the current flow from the resonant network being shunted during the protection mode, and therefore the combination of references teaches said recitation within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In response to arguments on pages 12-13 regarding secondary reference DROBNIK, the modification of the first and second switches of primary reference SANDNER to be normally closed switch switches as disclosed in DROBNIK would be obvious to one of ordinary skill. For example, one of ordinary skill seeking to create a specific switching behavior would view normally closed switches as a predictable alternative for the switches in the bridge configuration of SANDNER, based on the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Alternatively, using normally closed switches would be an obvious choice for a circuit requiring a default-on state, or to provide fail-safe operation, ensuring the SANDNER protection mode remains active during signal failure or broken wires. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the combination of SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK teaches the magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit as described in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/19/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDNER (US 2015/0263511; cited on IDS with date 9/30/2024; cited in previous office action) in view of ICHIKAWA (US 2015/0372498; cited in previous office action) and DROBNIK (US 2014/0281638; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, SANDNER discloses a magnetic inductive charging circuit (¶ 0029: numerous examples of DC load 8 exist and may include, but are not limited to, charging circuits; ¶ 0035: RX coil 32 includes inductor 26 and capacitors 24A and 24B. RX coil may receive an AC power input via wireless link 10), comprising:
a network comprising an AC current source (¶ 0034: Power converter 4A is shown as being a wireless power receiver configured to receive an AC power input via wireless link 10) including an inductive secondary coil (26, Fig. 3) that converts a magnetic field received (¶ 0031: link 10 is a wireless link for wirelessly transmitting AC power) into an alternating current (AC) signal (¶ 0035: RX coil may receive an AC power input via wireless link 10 and output an AC current and/or AC voltage);
a first pair of diodes (part of 20A & 20B, Fig. 3; ¶ 0045: In the example of FIG. 3, each of switches 20 and 22 of rectifier 34 are active switching elements capable of conducting current in a passive mode. For instance, each of switches 20 and 22 represent MOS type switches that each include respective body diodes configured to conduct current, even when switched-off, when the voltage across each of switches 20 and 22 exceeds the breakthrough voltage of each respective body diode. In some examples, high-side switches 20 may not be active switching elements and may instead be passive switching elements, such as diodes) respectively connected to first and second leads of the AC current source (18A, 18B, Fig. 3; ¶ 0036: Switches 20 and 22 represent MOS type switch devices that are arranged in a H-bridge configuration for rectifying an AC voltage input received at nodes 18A and 18B into a DC voltage output at link 12) and a second pair of diodes (part of 22A & 22B, Fig. 3) respectively connected to the first and second leads of the AC current source (18A, 18B, Fig. 3) that rectify the AC signal to generate a direct current (DC) signal (¶ 0035: Rectifier 34 may receive the AC current and/or AC voltage from RX coil 32 at nodes 18A and 18B and rectify the AC current and/or AC voltage to a rectified DC current and/or rectified DC voltage output at link 12) for application to a load to be charged (¶ 0032: power converter 4 may rectify the AC voltage of the AC power delivered by AC supply 2 to a DC voltage of DC power that meets the power requirements of DC load 8. For instance, AC supply 2 may output, and power converter 4 may receive, power which has an AC voltage level at link 10. Power converter 4 may convert (e.g., rectify) the power which has the AC voltage level to power which has a DC voltage level that is required by DC load 8. Power converter 4 may output the power that has the DC voltage level at link 12. Filter 6 may receive the power from converter 4 and output the filtered power that has the DC voltage level at link 14. DC load 8 may receive the filtered power that has the DC voltage level at link 14); and
means for shunting an AC signal current flow out of the AC current source (comprising switches 22A & 22B, Fig. 3) in an event of a fault or loss of rectification control being detected during rectification by the first and second pair of diodes (¶ 0053: If control unit 30B determines that rectifier 34 is experiencing or is about to undergo an overvoltage condition, control unit 30B may alter the control of switches 20 and 22 and control switches 20 and 22 via commands across link 16 to cause rectifier 34 to operate in "protection mode." When control unit 30B causes rectifier 34 to operate in protection mode, control unit 30B may switch-off, turn-off, or otherwise partially or completely disable switches 20A and 20B of rectifier 34 (e.g., each of the high-side switches of rectifier 34) while switching-on, turning-on, or otherwise partially or completely enabling switches 22A and 22B of rectifier 34 (e.g., each of the low-side switches of rectifier 34); ¶ 0054: As a result of configuring rectifier 34 to operate in protection mode during an overvoltage event, control unit 30B may cause a low-ohmic connection between nodes 18A and 18B (e.g., the AC inputs of rectifier 34) and a common ground. The low-ohmic connection between nodes 18A and 18B and a common ground may remove or at least limit any stress that switches 20 and 22 may experiencing during an overvoltage and may prevent damage or destruction of rectifier 34; the overvoltage condition can be considered a “fault” within the broadest reasonable interpretation),
wherein the shunting means comprises a first switch connected in parallel with a first diode of the second pair of diodes (22A, Fig. 3) and a second switch connected in parallel with a second diode of the second pair of diodes (22B, Fig. 3), the first and second switches shunting the AC current source in the event of a fault or loss of rectification control (¶ 0053-0054: see above).
SANDNER fails to disclose a magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit; a resonant network; the magnetic field is received from an inductive primary coil, and the resonant network is disconnected from the load and the current flow out of the resonant network is shunted when no power is applied to the first and second pairs of diodes.
ICHIKAWA discloses a magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit (¶ 0004: wireless charging that allows a battery of an electromotive vehicle to be charged contactlessly; ¶ 0205: capacitors 33, 34 form an LC resonant circuit together with the coils 31, 32. The capacitance of the capacitors 33, 34 is set as needed on the basis of the inductance of each of the coils 31, 32 such that a predetermined frequency is obtained); a resonant network (comprising at least coil 31 and capacitor 33, Fig. 21; ¶ 0205); the magnetic field is received from an inductive primary coil (51, Fig. 21; ¶ 0206: coils 31, 32 contactlessly receive electric power from the coil 51 (primary coil) of the power transmitting unit 400B of the power transmitting device 60B through electromagnetic induction by using an electromagnetic field), and the resonant network is disconnected from the load and the current flow out of the resonant network is shunted when no power is applied to the first and second pairs of diodes (including the resonant network of ICHIKAWA in the charging circuit of SANDNER, which shunts the current flow and disconnects the load as disclosed in ¶ 0053-0054, teaches this limitation; in other words, turning on switches 22A & 22B as shown in Figure 3 of SANDNER provides the recitation “the current flow out of the resonant network is shunted” and therefore, effectively, no power is applied to the diodes as they are not conducting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the resonant inductive coupling of ICHIKAWA into the magnetic inductive charging circuit of SANDNER to produce an expected result of a magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide greater spatial freedom and longer transfer distance during power transfer.
SANDNER fails to disclose a first normally closed switch and a second normally closed switch.
DROBNIK discloses a first normally closed switch and a second normally closed switch (¶ 0021-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the normally closed switches of DROBNIK into the magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit of SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA to produce an expected result of a magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit including normally closed switches. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance the shunting operation during fault as disclosed in SANDNER by providing a reliable default state that protects the circuit if the control power is lost; or to achieve the predictable result of a suitable means for shunting.
Regarding claim 5, SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK teaches the resonant network further comprises first and second balanced capacitors connected in series to respective ends of the secondary coil whereby the AC signal series resonates with the first and second capacitors (ICHIKAWA, ¶ 0205-0206).
Regarding claim 8, SANDNER discloses signal conditioning circuitry that conditions the DC signal into a conditioned DC signal for application to the load (6, Fig. 1; ¶ 0026, 0029; 154, Fig. 7; ¶ 0071).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDNER in view of ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of BADSTIBNER (US 2013/0289334; cited on IDS with date 9/30/2024; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 7, SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK teaches the charging circuit as applied to claim 1, and ICHIKAWA further discloses the resonant network comprises an inductive primary coil (51, Fig. 21), the secondary coil (31, Fig. 21), a third resonant capacitor in series with the secondary coil at a first end of the secondary coil (33, Fig. 21), and a fourth resonant capacitor in series with the secondary coil at a second end of the secondary coil (34, Fig. 21).
SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK fails to disclose the resonant network a first resonant capacitor in series with the primary coil at a first end of the primary coil, and a second resonant capacitor in series with the primary coil at a second end of the primary coil.
BADSTIBNER discloses the resonant network comprises an inductive primary coil (130a, Fig. 1B), a first resonant capacitor in series with the primary coil at a first end of the primary coil (as shown in Fig. 1B, primary coil 130a has a series connected capacitor connected at each end; ¶ 0137: Two tuning capacitors, one on each side of primary coil 130a, may optionally be used to balance the system and to reduce switching noise on primary coil 130a to ensure EMI compliance as, for example, required by the FCC), a second resonant capacitor in series with the primary coil at a second end of the primary coil (as shown in Fig. 1B, primary coil 130a has a series connected capacitor connected at each end; ¶ 0137), the secondary coil (230a, Fig. 1B), a third resonant capacitor in series with the secondary coil at a first end of the secondary coil (as shown in Fig. 1B, secondary coil 230a has a series connected capacitor connected at each end; ¶ 0140: Two tuning capacitors, one on each side of the secondary coil, may optionally be used to balance the system and to reduce switching noise on the secondary coil to ensure EMI compliance as, for example, required by the FCC), and a fourth resonant capacitor in series with the secondary coil at a second end of the secondary coil (as shown in Fig. 1B, secondary coil 230a has a series connected capacitor connected at each end; ¶ 0140). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply a known resonant network configuration from a low-power inductive charging system as disclosed in BADSTIBNER to a high-power inductive charging system because adapting known circuits for use in similar systems, even with different power ratings, would have been a predictable application of a known technique yielding predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the resonant network of BADSTIBNER into the charging circuit of SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK to produce an expected result of a charging circuit with a modified resonant network. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a desired wireless power transfer performance characteristic based on application and as a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDNER in view of ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of NARUSE (US 2019/0148065; cited on IDS with date 9/30/2024; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 14, SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK teaches a charging circuit as applied to claim 1, and further teaches the resonant network further comprises the inductive primary coil, the inductive primary coil comprising a coil winding (ICHIKAWA, ¶ 0206).
SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK fails to disclose the coil winding is disposed on at least one side of an insulative substrate.
NARUSE discloses the coil winding is disposed on at least one side of an insulative substrate (¶ 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the coil winding disposed on an insulative substrate as disclosed in NARUSE into the magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit of SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK to produce an expected result of a magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit including an insulative substrate. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide electrical isolation.
Regarding claim 17, SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK teaches a charging circuit as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the secondary coil is mounted on an electric vehicle and the load is a battery of the electric vehicle.
NARUSE discloses the secondary coil is mounted on an electric vehicle and the load is a battery of the electric vehicle (¶ 0038, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the electric vehicle and battery of NARUSE into the magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit of SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA and DROBNIK to produce an expected result of magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit for charging a vehicle battery. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to expand the types of loads the charging circuit may service.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SANDNER in view of ICHIKAWA, DROBNIK, and NARUSE as applied to claims 14 and 17 above, and further in view of LESTOQUOY (US 2018/0040416; cited on IDS with date 9/30/2024; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 16, SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA, DROBNIK, and NARUSE teaches a charging circuit as applied to claim 14, but fails to disclose a first resonant capacitor connected in series to a first end of the coil winding and a second resonant capacitor connected in series to a second end of the coil winding, a midpoint of the coil winding between the first and second ends of the coil winding being virtually ground whereby the coil winding does not capacitively radiate electromagnetic interference.
LESTOQUOY discloses a first resonant capacitor connected in series to a first end of the coil winding and a second resonant capacitor connected in series to a second end of the coil winding, a midpoint of the coil winding between the first and second ends of the coil winding being virtually ground whereby the coil winding does not capacitively radiate electromagnetic interference (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the midpoint of the coil winding being virtually ground as disclosed in LESTOQUOY into the magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit of SANDNER as modified by ICHIKAWA, DROBNIK, and NARUSE to produce an expected result of a modified magnetic inductive resonance charging circuit. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide improved power transfer efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NADD (US Pub. No. 2006/0275970) is cited as showing two normally closed transistors of a bridge configuration as part of a failsafe operation.
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 MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 4/3/2026
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859