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 Status
Claims 1 – 19 are pending. Claims 12 and 16 were amended. Claim 20 was cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims include a spurious comma after the word “and”, in lines 4 and 3, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7 and 14 include the element/step “measuring a reflected impedance or a change in current draw in the first wireless power transmitter” and “measuring a reflected impedance in the first wireless power transmitter”. A review of the specification finds no description of a device or mechanism capable of receiving a “reflected impedance”, and therefore contains no description of how to detect the presence of a “mobile object” by calculating a “reflected impedance”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims include the element/step “measuring a reflected impedance or a change in current draw in the first wireless power transmitter” and “measuring a reflected impedance in the first wireless power transmitter”. As best understood by the Examiner, the term “reflected impedance” refers to a property of a transformer. It is unclear where a transformer is used in the instant claims, and the claim includes no limitations regarding a component capable of measuring a “reflected impedance”. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “measuring a change in current drawn by the first wireless power transmitter”.
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.
Claims 1, 5 – 7, and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narayana Bhat et al., US 2020/0212721 (hereinafter 'Narayana Bhat')
Regarding claim 1: Narayana Bhat teaches a wireless charging network ([0034; Fig 1]: discloses a wireless power transmission apparatus with multiple primary coils) comprising:
a first wireless power transmitter and a second wireless power transmitter, wherein the first and second wireless power transmitters are configured to provide power to a moveable object ([0045, 0047 ; Fig 1]: discloses a wireless power transmission apparatus 110 comprising a plurality of primary coils 120, including “a first primary coil 121” and “a second primary coil 122”, that provide power to a “robot, vehicle, or the like”);
at least one processor coupled to the wireless charging network ([0051, 0083; Figs 1, 10 ]: supervisory controller 170 includes processor 1002); and
at least one memory, coupled to the at least one processor, and storing instructions for enabling and disabling the first and second wireless power transmitters based on a spatial location of the moveable object ([0083, 0084; Figs 1, 10]: discloses an electronic device 1000 that implements the wireless power transmission apparatus 110, which “can include a memory 1006”).
Regarding claim 5: Narayana Bhat teaches the wireless charging network of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first wireless power transmitter is further configured to detect a physical proximity of the moveable object to the first wireless power transmitter and enable a power transmission from the first wireless power transmitter when the moveable object is detected to be physically proximate to the first wireless power transmitter ([0048, 0059]: discloses that power is transmitted from a coil of the ireless power transmission apparatus to a wireless power receiving apparatus when “an object is present based on the load change measured by the local sensor 310”).
Regarding claim 6: Narayana Bhat teaches the wireless charging network of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a database configured to receive a communication signal indicating a charge remaining in a power source of the moveable object ([0059]: discloses a local controller 131 (database) that receives . a signal from a local sensor 310 indicating the presence of a wirelessly chargeable object).
Regarding claim 7: Narayana Bhat teaches the wireless charging network of claim 5, as discussed above, wherein detecting the physical proximity of the moveable object to the first wireless power transmitter comprises detecting a wireless charging receiver by measuring a reflected impedance or a change in current draw in the first wireless power transmitter ([0059]: discloses a local controller 131 (database) that receives a signal from a local sensor 310 indicating the presence of a wirelessly chargeable object based on a change in the detected load, using “the sensed current, the sensed voltage VAC 340 or combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 10: Narayana Bhat teaches a method implemented on a wireless charging network for supplying power to mobile objects, the method comprising:
supplying a first power, by a first wireless power transmitter, to a mobile object when the mobile object is proximate to the first wireless power transmitter ([0042]: discloses that the supervisory controller causes power to be transmitted using a first primary coil when the mobile object is positioned close to the first primary coil); and
supplying a second power, by a second wireless power transmitter, to the mobile object when the mobile object is proximate to the second wireless power transmitter ([0042]: discloses that the supervisory controller causes power to be transmitted using a second primary coil when the mobile object is positioned close to the second primary coil).
Regarding claim 11: Narayana Bhat teaches the method of claim 10, as discussed above, wherein supplying the first power to the mobile object comprises:
detecting that the mobile object is proximate to the first wireless power transmitter ([0068, 0069; Fig 5]: discloses a spatial sensor 520, either externally supplied or integrated into the wireless power transmission apparatus 110, that is used to determine the position of the mobile object is close to the wireless power transmission apparatus 110); and
enabling the first wireless power transmitter in response to detecting that the mobile object is proximate to the first wireless power transmitter ([0042]: discloses that the supervisory controller causes power to be transmitted using a first primary coil when the mobile object is positioned close to the first primary coil).
Regarding claim 12: Narayana Bhat teaches the method of claim 10, as discussed above, further comprising monitoring, by a controller, a power charge status of the mobile object ([0049]: discloses “the receive controller 240 may include a battery charging management module to collect and process information on a charging state of the battery module 250”).
Regarding claim 13: Narayana Bhat teaches the method of claim 10, as discussed above, further comprising transmitting, by the mobile object, a communication signal to a database in the wireless charging network, wherein the communication signal indicates a charge remaining in the mobile object ([0059]: discloses that the local controller can monitor “charging state information, voltage control information, or other information” and provide those to a remote controller using a communication unit).
Regarding claim 14: Narayana Bhat teaches the method of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein detecting that the mobile object is proximate to the first wireless power transmitter comprises measuring a reflected impedance in the first wireless power transmitter ([0036]: discloses that the local controller uses “a coil current sensing process to determine if a wireless power receiving apparatus is located near the primary coil”).
Regarding claim 15: Narayana Bhat teaches the method of claim 11, as discussed above, further comprising transmitting, by the first wireless power transmitter, a communication signal to a database in the wireless charging network in response to enabling the first wireless power transmitter, wherein the communication signal indicates that the first wireless power transmitter has been enabled ([0059]: discloses a local controller 131 (database) that receives a signal from a local sensor 310 indicating the presence of a wirelessly chargeable object based on a change in the detected load, using “the sensed current, the sensed voltage VAC 340 or combination thereof”).
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.
Claim 2, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi, US 2013?0249479 (hereinafter 'Partovi').
Regarding claim 2: Narayana Bhat teaches the wireless charging network of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first wireless power transmitter comprises a first set of wireless charging nodes and the second wireless power transmitter comprises a second set of wireless charging nodes ([0045, 0052; Fig 2]: discloses a wireless power transmission system with two sets of wireless power transmission coils, arrange in a first layer 153 and a second layer 152, with the first layer managed by first local controller 131 and the second layer managed by a second local controller 132).
Narayana Bhat is silent with respect to wherein
each node of the first set and the second set of wireless charging nodes comprises one or more capacitors and an antenna, wherein the one or more capacitors are tuned to substantially excite the antenna at an operating frequency of the first or the second wireless power transmitter.
Partovi teaches a wireless charger or power system ([0069; Fig. 1]) that includes
each wireless charging node comprises one or more capacitors and an antenna ([0090; Fig 2]: discloses a wireless power receiver 130 that comprises a capacitor C2 and a receiver coil L2], wherein the one or more capacitors are tuned to substantially excite the antenna at an operating frequency of the first or the second wireless power transmitter ([0090, 0101; Fig 2]: discloses that the receiver includes impedance matching circuits along with capacitor C2 “to produce a tuned receiver circuit”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi to include impedance matching circuits in order to “to optimize/improve power transfer between the charger and receiver” ([0090]).
Regarding claim 3: Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi teaches the wireless charging network of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the first set of wireless charging nodes comprises a different number of wireless charging nodes than the second set of wireless charging nodes (Narayana Bhat: [0052; Fig 2]: illustrates a first set of 12 primary coils in a first layer 153, and a second set of 6 primary coils in a second layer 152).
Regarding claim 8: Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi teaches the wireless charging network of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein a number of wireless charging nodes in the first set and the second set of wireless charging nodes is based on a number of moveable objects adapted to receive power from the wireless charging network ([0035, 0043]: discloses that system supports “multiple wireless power receiving apparatuses using different primary coils”, which is interpreted as requiring at least one primary coil per receiving apparatus, including mobile objects such as a robot or a car).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi in view of Evans, US 2020/0207230 (hereinafter 'Evans').
Regarding claim 4: Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi teaches the wireless charging network of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the first set of wireless charging nodes comprises wireless charging nodes spaced at a first distance from each other and the second set of wireless charging nodes comprises wireless charging nodes spaced at a second distance from each other (Narayana Bhat: [0052; Fig 2]: illustrates a first set of 12 primary coils in a first layer 153 with the spacing shown in the figure, and a second set of 6 primary coils in a second layer 152 with a similar spacing).
Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi is silent with respect to wherein
the first distance and the second distance are different.
Evans teaches a system for wirelessly charging drones, using a set of wireless charging pod, where the pods are described as spaced either 1 or 2 km apart ([0098 – 0101; Table 1; Fig 12]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi in view of Evans to adjust the layout of the system to accommodate different terrain, different charging speeds of the vehicle, and varied distances to the final delivery point ([0098]).
Regarding claim 9: Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi teaches the wireless charging network of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the first set of wireless charging nodes are arranged around a first point, and the second set of wireless charging nodes are arranged around a second point, wherein the first set of wireless charging nodes comprises a larger number of wireless charging nodes than the second set of wireless charging nodes (Narayana Bhat: [0052; Fig 2]: illustrates a first set of 12 primary coils in a first layer 153, arranged around a first point, and a second set of 6 primary coils in a second layer 152 arranged around a second point).
Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi is silent with respect to
a track traversed by the moveable object, and the moveable object spends more time around the first point than around the second point.
Evans teaches a system for wirelessly charging ground-based electric vehicles and rail-based electric vehicles ([0120]) that includes
a track traversed by the moveable object ([0120]: “passenger and parcel pod cars coupled to a rail by special wheeled track chassis driven by electric motor”), and
the moveable object spends more time around the first point than around the second point ([0098, 0099]: discloses that vechicles charge for different amounts of time at a charging station, and that a longer charging time “enables a longer distance between stations”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Narayana Bhat in view of Partovi in view of Evans to support rail-based vehicles as well as free-range vehicles such as a forklift, to support a wider range of transportation modes.
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayana Bhat in view of Evans.
Regarding claim 16: Narayana Bhat teaches a system comprising:
a moveable object ([0043]: a “robot or vehicle”); and
a bank of wireless transmitters configured to provide wireless power to the moveable object ([0045, 0047 ; Fig 1]: discloses a wireless power transmission apparatus 110 comprising a plurality of primary coils 120, including “a first primary coil 121” and “a second primary coil 122”, that provide power to a “robot, vehicle, or the like”).
Narayana Bhat is silent with respect to
a moveable track on which a moveable object is located.
Evans teaches a system for wirelessly charging ground-based electric vehicles and rail-based electric vehicles ([0120]) that includes
a moveable track on which a moveable object is located ([0120]: “passenger and parcel pod cars coupled to a rail by special wheeled track chassis driven by electric motor”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Narayana Bhat in in view of Evans to support rail-based vehicles as well as free-range vehicles such as a forklift, to support a wider range of transportation modes.
Regarding claim 17: Narayana Bhat in in view of Evans teaches the system of claim 16, as discussed above, wherein the bank of wireless transmitters operates to control the providing the wireless power to the moveable object using a nearest N number of wireless transmitters (Narayana Bhat: [0041 – 0043]: discloses that “a supervisory controller may manage multiple local controllers to coordinate the transmission of wireless power” using a first primary coil and a second primary coil to provide power to a robot or vehicle).
Regarding claim 18: Narayana Bhat in in view of Evans teaches the system of claim 17, as discussed above, wherein N = 1 (Narayana Bhat: [0042]: discloses that the supervisory controller may use a first primary coil).
.
Regarding claim 19: Narayana Bhat in in view of Evans teaches the system of claim 17, as discussed above, wherein N = 2, and the nearest N wireless transmitters includes a first wireless transmitter from which the moveable object is moving away and a second wireless transmitter towards which the moveable object is moving (Narayana Bhat: [0042]: discloses that the supervisory controller may predict the motion of the wireless power receiving apparatus, and prepare for a “seamless transfer of power” from a first primary coil to a second primary coil).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent A Fairbanks whose telephone number is (408)918-7532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:30PM PDT.
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, Brent A Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899