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 Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 15-28) in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledge. Group II (claims 29-34) are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of claims: As directed, claims 15-28 are pending in this application, claims 29-34 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the bottoms of drawing sheets 1, 3, and 4 appear to be cut off, thus the labels: Fig. 2, Fig. 6, and Fig. 8 are missing. Additionally, what appears to be Fig. 6 has what is assumed to be characters “112a”, “114a”, “116a” and “118a” half cut off. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “112a”, “114a”, “116a” and “118a”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The supply inductor element 14a” (Pg. 14, paragraph [0038], line 2 and line 7 of the paragraph), should read “the supply induction element 14a”.
“The supply inductor element 14a” (Pg. 15, paragraph [0039], line 6 of the paragraph), should read “the supply induction element 14a”.
“The supply inductor element 14a” (Pg. 15, paragraph [0040], line 3 of the paragraph), should read “the supply induction element 14a”.
“The receiving inductor element 22a” (Pg. 15, paragraph [0040], line 4 of the paragraph), should read “the receiving induction element 22a”.
“A second time period 30a” (Pg. 16, paragraph [0044], line 6 of the paragraph), should read “a second time window 30a”.
“The supply inductor element 14a” (Pg. 16, paragraph [0047], line 2 of the paragraph), should read “the supply induction element 14a”.
“The receiving inductor element 22a” (Pg. 16, paragraph [0047], lines 2-3 of the paragraph), should read “the receiving induction element 22a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Control unit” in claim 15 (line 6 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “designed to” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “control unit” will be interpreted as any electronic unit that can control the inverter unit and equivalents, as indicated by: “A ‘control unit’ is to be understood as an electronic unit that is provided so as to control and/or regulate at least the inverter unit. It is preferred that the control unit comprises a computing unit and, in particular, in addition to the computing unit, a memory unit having stored therein a control and/or a regulating program which is intended to be executed by the computing unit” (Pg. 6, paragraph [0014]).
“Inverter switching element” in claims 23, 24, and 25 (line 2 of each respective claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “inverter switching” (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “inverter switching element” will be interpreted as “bipolar transistors” and equivalents, as indicated by: “It is preferred that the inverter unit comprises at least two inverter switching elements which are preferably configured as bipolar transistors having an insulated gate electrode” (Pg. 4, paragraph [0010]).
“Communication unit” in claim 27 (line 2 of the claim). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “designed to” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “communication unit” will be interpreted as RFID, or WIFI, or Bluetooth, or ZigBee, or wireless data transmission according to another suitable standard and equivalents, as indicated by: “The communication unit could in addition be provided for wireless data transmission between the control unit and the small household appliance by RFID, or by WIFI, or by Bluetooth, or by ZigBee, or for wireless data transmission according to another suitable standard” (Pg. 11, paragraph [0025]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-28 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" (line 7 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "at least one operating state" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “at least one operating state” was previously set forth in claim 15. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim “the at least one operating parameter” of claim 15, or another “at least one operating state.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a control period" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a control period” was previously set forth in claim 15. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim “the control period” of claim 15, or “a further control period.”
Claim 22 recites the limitation "at least one operating state" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “at least one operating state” was previously set forth in claim 15. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim “the at least one operating parameter” of claim 15, or another “at least one operating state.”
Claim 24 recites the limitation "a switching parameter" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “at least one switching parameter” was previously set forth in claim 15. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim “the at least one switching parameter” of claim 15, or a different “switching parameter.”
Claim 25 recites the limitation "a switching parameter" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “at least one switching parameter” was previously set forth in claim 15. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim “the at least one switching parameter” of claim 15, or a different “switching parameter.”
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the mains AC voltage" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 depends upon claim 15, and the limitation “a mains AC voltage ” is introduced in claims 17, 18, and 21. Thus, it is unclear if applicant intends to imply dependence on 17, 18, or 21, or claim “a mains AC voltage.”
Claims 16-28 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 15-21, 23-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joye et al. (U.S. 10340738 B2), hereinafter Joye.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 (Joye)
PNG
media_image2.png
459
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 9 (Joye)
PNG
media_image3.png
836
1145
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 10 (Joye)
PNG
media_image4.png
628
1110
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 16 (Joye)
Regarding claim 15, Joye discloses an induction energy transmission system (Fig. 7, “power transfer system” [Col. 9, lines 17-19]), comprising:
a supply unit (Fig. 7, “power transmitter 2” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 - Col. 10, lines 1-30]) including a supply induction element (Fig. 7, “power transfer inductor/ power transfer coil 307” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 - Col. 10, lines 1-30]) designed to inductively provide energy and an inverter unit (Fig. 7, “power signal generator/ inverter 303” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) designed to operate the supply induction element (Fig. 7, “power transfer inductor/ power transfer coil 307” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 - Col. 10, lines 1-30]) (“The rectifier 301 is coupled to a power signal generator 303 which receives the power source signal and which from this generates a drive signal for the power transfer coil 307” [Col. 11, lines 39-41]);
a small household appliance (“Fig. 7, “power receiver 5” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 - Col. 10, lines 1-30]; “Various apparatuses, such as a blender, coffee machine etc. could be used as power receivers” [Col. 5, lines 5-6]) including a receiving induction element (Fig. 7, “inductor/receiver coil 313” [Col. 14, lines 24-35]) designed to receive inductively provided energy; and
a control unit (Fig. 7, “Tx control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) designed to control the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “power signal generator/ inverter 303” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]; “the Tx control unit 401 receives information about the occurrence of a zero crossing in the input power source signal Umains. It can then accordingly control the power inverter (303)” [Col. 10, lines 46-49]), said control unit (Fig. 7, “Tx control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) being designed such as to interrupt (“The power signal generator 303 may specifically comprise a frequency converter” [Col. 11, lines 50-51]; “the signal from the frequency converter is coupled to the power transfer coil 307 during power transfer periods which are interrupted by communication periods in which the signal from the drive signal is not coupled to the power transfer coil 307” [Col. 11, lines 48-53]) in at least one operating state (Annotated Fig. 16, “power transfer period” [Col. 8, line 51-52]) for adjusting a supply power (“transferring power via the first inductor during power transfer periods of a repeating time frame and receive data signal via the second inductor during communication periods of a repeating time frame” [Col. 8, line 51-52]) for the small household appliance (“Fig. 7, “power receiver 5” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 - Col. 10, lines 1-30]) a provision of supply AC current (Fig. 10, “Iac_Tx” / “current” [Col. 12, lines 14-34]) by the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) for a first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) within a control period (“time frame” [Col. 10, lines 51-55]) and to adapt in a second time window (Annotated Fig. 16, “second time window” / “discharge time” [Col. 27, lines 19-44] and [Col. 27, lines 45-48]) within the control period (“time frame” [Col. 10, lines 51-55]) at least one switching parameter (“frequency” or “S1 and S4 open” or “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of a switching parameter set (“frequency” and “S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]).
Regarding claim 16, Joye further discloses the induction energy transmission system (Fig. 7, “power transfer system” [Col. 9, lines 17-19]) constructed in a form of an induction cooking system (“Inductive power sources for a system according to the invention may be stand alone or integrated in kitchen counter tops to power cordless appliances… integration of power transmitters is not limited to counter tops and induction cooktops. They may also be integrated into kitchen or dining tables, thus enabling completely new functions that were not possible before. Examples are keeping food or drinks warm, toasting bread, making coffee or cooling wine. It will also enable a whole range of table top cooking possibilities at home or in restaurants” [Col. 2, lines 32-47]).
Regarding claim 17 Joye further discloses the wherein the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) comprises a point in time in which a mains AC voltage (Annotated Fig. 10, “supply voltage Umains” [Col. 28, line 60]) has a maximum value (Annotated Fig. 10, “Maximum Value of Umains in First Time Window”).
Regarding claim 18, Joye further discloses wherein a duration of the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) is at least 1.0 ms (“In many embodiments, the communication periods will have a duration of no less than 1 ms and no more than 5 ms” [ Col. 14, lines 53-55]).
Regarding claim 19, Joye further discloses wherein a duration of the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) is shorter than half a period duration (Annotated Fig. 10, 10 ms) of a mains AC voltage (Annotated Fig. 10, “supply voltage Umains” [Col. 28, line 60]). (Examiner note: See Annotated Fig. 10, half a period duration of mains AC voltage is 10 ms, thus less than the first time window).
Regarding claim 20, Joye further discloses wherein the control unit (Fig. 7, “Tx control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) is designed to interrupt (“power transfer periods which are interrupted by communication periods” [Col. 12, lines 50-51]) in at least one operating state the provision of supply AC current (Fig. 10, “Iac_Tx” / “current” [Col. 12, lines 14-34]) by the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) for at least a further first time window (Annotated Figs. 1 and 2, “further first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) within a control period (“time frame” [Col. 10, lines 51-55]).
Regarding claim 21, Joye further discloses wherein the control unit (Fig. 7, “Tx control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) is designed to arrange the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) and the further first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “further first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) temporally spaced apart with respect to each other within half a period duration (Annotated Fig. 10, 10 ms) of a mains AC voltage (Annotated Fig. 10, “supply voltage Umains” [Col. 28, line 60]). (“For example, the switch may couple the communication coil 407 to the demodulation circuit 1007/driver 1001, 1003 8 msecs after the last decoupling. The switch may then wait another 2 msec before again decoupling the communication coil 407. In this way, a simple 10 msec time frame is achieved. Further, this time frame may be synchronized to the amplitude variations of the power transfer signal, e.g. by the midpoint of the communication period, i.e. the midpoint of the 2 msec of coupling, being set to the time of the repeating minima of the amplitude of the power transfer signal” [Col. 21, line 67 – Col. 22, lines 1-10]).
Regarding claim 23, Joye further discloses the wherein the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) comprises an inverter switching element (Fig. 9, “switches S1, S2, S3, and S4” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]), the switching parameter set (“frequency” and “S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) comprising a switching frequency (“desired frequency” [Col. 12, lines 30-31]) of the inverter switching element (Fig. 9, “switches S1, S2, S3, and S4” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]).
Regarding claim 24, Joye further discloses wherein the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) comprises an inverter switching element (Fig. 9, “switches S1, S2, S3, and S4” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]), the switching parameter set (“frequency” and “S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) comprising a switching parameter (“S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of the inverter switching element (Fig. 9, “switches S1, S2, S3, and S4” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]), with the switching parameter “S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) characterizing a switch-on duration (Annotated Fig. 16, “switches S1 and S4 are closed while S2 and S3 are open, and then S2 and S3 are closed while S1 and S4 are open” [Col. 12, lines 27-29]; “At the beginning of the power transfer period switches S1 and S4 are open… Shortly before the end of the power period at time t1 and before the start of the communication period switch S1 is closed… Switch S4 can then be closed any time between t2 and t3… [Col. 27, lines 19-44]).
Regarding claim 25 Joye further discloses wherein the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) comprises an inverter switching element (Fig. 9, “switches S1, S2, S3, and S4” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]), the switching parameter set (“frequency” and “S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) comprising a switching parameter (“S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of the inverter switching element (Fig. 9, “switches S1, S2, S3, and S4” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) of the inverter unit (Fig. 7, “inverter 303” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]), with the switching parameter (“S1 and S4 open” and “S2 and S3 open” [Col. 12, lines 14-31]) characterizing a switch-on point in time (Annotated Fig. 16, “beginning of power transfer period” and end of “Comm. Period” [Col. 27, lines 19-44]).
Regarding claim 27, Joye further discloses further comprising a communication unit (Fig. 7, “second inductor/communication coil 407” [Col. 13, 39-42]) designed to provide a wireless communication (“communicating data by wireless induction” [Col. 14, lines 34-35]) between the control unit (Fig. 7, “control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) and the small household appliance (Fig. 7, “power receiver 5” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 – Col. 10, lines 1-30]). (“A power transmitter (2) for transferring power to a power receiver comprises a first inductor (307) for providing power and a second inductor (407) for receiving data signals from a power receiver. The first (307) and second (407) inductors are separate inductors in a power transfer circuit (701) and a data signal receiving circuit (702). The data signal receiving circuit (702) comprises a data extracting circuit (1007) for extracting the data signals received by the second inductor (407). The power transmitter comprises a control circuit (401) for controlling the power in dependence on the data signals. The power transmitter transfers power during power transfer periods and receives data during communication periods, communication periods corresponding to periods wherein power is low. The control circuit (401) electrically couples the data extraction circuit (1007) and the second inductor (407) from each other during communication periods and electrical decouples them during at least a part of power transfer periods” [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 28, Joye further discloses wherein the control unit (Fig. 7, “control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) is designed to perform the wireless communication (“communicating data by wireless induction” [Col. 14, lines 34-35]) with the small household (Fig. 7, “power receiver 5” [Col. 9, lines 58-67 – Col. 10, lines 1-30]) appliance via the communication unit (Fig. 7, “second inductor/communication coil 407” [Col. 13, 39-42]) within the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]). (“The Tx control circuit 401 uses the signals to control the power channel. For instance the amount of power is dependent on the type of device and/or the load required to drive the device, and feedback on this can be provided by data sent from the power receiver 5 to the power transmitter 2 via the communication channel. In FIG. 7 the indication kp and kc stand for the coupling coefficients between inductors 307 and 313, respectively 407 and 413. The reference “ZeroX” refers to zero crossing and indicates timing information provided or retrieved to indicate when the input signal Umains has a zero crossing. This indicates that the Tx control unit 401 receives information about the occurrence of a zero crossing in the input power source signal Umains. It can then accordingly control the power inverter (303) and the carrier generation & demodulation (403) circuits in response to the timings of these zero crossings. In the embodiment, the timing of the zero crossings are used to generate a time frame which comprises communication periods/intervals/time slots and power transfer periods/intervals/time slots. The communication periods are positioned around the zero crossings and are time periods in which communication may occur, in particular where the power receiver 5 may communicate by load modulation” [Col. 10, lines 35-58]).
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.
Claims 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joye (U.S. 10340738 B2).
Regarding claim 22, Joye teaches substantially the claimed invention as applied in claim 20, including wherein the system is arranged such that, in at least one operating state a duration of the further first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “further first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) and a duration of the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]).
Joye does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one operating state a duration of the further first time window is shorter than a duration of the first time window.
However, it is noted that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to control the duration of the time windows in which communication occurs, between a transmitter and a receiver in an inductive system, as it can interrupt the transfer of power, between the transmitter and receiver (“In particular, there is typically a conflict between the requirements and characteristics of the power signal and the desires for the communication. Typically, the system requires close interaction between the power transfer and communication functions” [Col. 3, lines 53-57]; “This load variation will interfere with the load modulation, resulting in degraded communication. Indeed, in practice it is typically very difficult to detect load modulation for loads that include a motor as part of the load. Therefore, in such scenarios, the number of communication errors is relatively high or the communication may utilize very high data symbol energy, thereby reducing the possible data rate very substantially” [Col. 4, lines 37-48]; “Furthermore, in order to provide efficient communication, it is desired that the overhead associated with communication (such as e.g. power transfer interruptions or degradations caused by the desired to communicate) are reduced as much as possible” [Col. 5, lines 18-22]).
Joye attempts to solve this problem by controlling the first time windows to have relatively short durations compared to the second time windows, periods of 1 ms to no one than 5 ms. This provides an advantageous trade off between the first and second time windows to reserve more time for power transfer, and provide a suitable communication bandwidth. (“The communication periods will typically have relatively short duration compared to the duration of the power transfer periods in order to reserve more time for the power transfer. Typically, the duration of the communication period will be less than 10% or even 5% of the total time frame (e.g. given by the duration of a power transfer interval and a communication interval). In many embodiments, the communication periods will have a duration of no less than 1 ms and no more than 5 ms. This may in many embodiments provide an advantageous trade-off between communication and power transfer requirements and may specifically provide a suitable communication bandwidth without unduly reducing the power transfer capability of the system” [Col. 14, lines 47-59])
Additionally, there is only a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions to controlling the duration of the time windows in which communication occurs and interrupts the transfer of power, in an inductive system. Those finite solutions being: 1) to control the communication time windows to be different durations (i.e. one time window is longer than the other, and one time window is shorter than the other), or 2) to control the communication time windows to be the same duration of time. Joye teaches the same time duration of 1 ms to 5 ms (“Typically, the duration of the communication period will be less than 10% or even 5% of the total time frame (e.g. given by the duration of a power transfer interval and a communication interval). In many embodiments, the communication periods will have a duration of no less than 1 ms and no more than 5 ms” [Col. 14, lines 47-59]).
One of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. In this case, controlling the communication time windows to be different durations allows for a more ideal trade off between the communication periods and the power transfer periods depending on the user’s current needs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Joye, by changing the duration of the further first time window to be shorter than the first time window, since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Regarding claim 26, Joye teaches substantially the claimed invention as applied in claim 15, including wherein the system is arranged such that, the control unit (Fig. 7, “Tx control circuit 401” [Col. 10, lines 31-51]) is designed to temporally space apart the first time window (Annotated Fig. 10, “first time window” [Col. 14, lines 53-55]) and the second time window (Annotated Fig. 16, “second time window” / “discharge time” [Col. 27, lines 19-44] and [Col. 27, lines 45-48]) with respect to each other (See “t1” relative to “Comm. period” in Annotated Fig. 16, and “discharge time interval of the time frame at least partially preceding the communication period” [Col. 5, lines 65-67]).
Joye does not explicitly disclose wherein the first time window and the second time window are temporally spaced apart with respect to each other by at least half a period duration of the mains AC voltage.
However, it is noted that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to regulate the power supply of an inductive system (“In particular, there is typically a conflict between the requirements and characteristics of the power signal and the desires for the communication. Typically, the system requires close interaction between the power transfer and communication functions” [Col. 3, lines 53-57]; “To prepare and control the power transfer between the power transmitter and the power receiver, the power receiver specifically communicates information to the power transmitter” [Col. 2, lines 65-67]).
Joye attempts to solve this problem by using switches to turn off the power signals to a supply induction element and discharge the capacitors prior to the first time window. (“discharge time interval of the time frame at least partially preceding the communication period” [Col. 5, lines 65-67]; “When the power level reaches a given threshold (e.g. 10% of the maximum value), the power transmitter 2 may proceed to entirely switch off the power signal to the power transfer coil 307, such as e.g. illustrated by the signal Uac_HF in FIG. 10. However, it may proceed to initiate the discharge of the capacitor earlier, and may in particular set the start time for the discharge time interval to the time instant the power level crosses a second, higher threshold. For example, the power transmitter 2 may start discharging the capacitor when the power level drops below, say, 15% of the maximum value” [Col. 28, lines 58-67- Col. 29, lines 1-6]).
Additionally, there is only a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions to regulate the power supply of an inductive system, such as, putting resistors, capacitors, or switches in the inductive system. Joye uses switches and capacitors (When the power level reaches a given threshold (e.g. 10% of the maximum value), the power transmitter 2 may proceed to entirely switch off the power signal to the power transfer coil 307, such as e.g. illustrated by the signal Uac_HF in FIG. 10. However, it may proceed to initiate the discharge of the capacitor earlier, and may in particular set the start time for the discharge time interval to the time instant the power level crosses a second, higher threshold. For example, the power transmitter 2 may start discharging the capacitor when the power level drops below, say, 15% of the maximum value” [Col. 28, lines 58-67- Col. 29, lines 1-6]).
One of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. In this case, the first time window and the second time window being temporally spaced apart with respect to each other by at least half a period duration of the mains AC voltage allows for a sufficient amount of time for the capacitors to discharge before the first time window, the communication period, occurs. A sufficient amount of time between the first time window and the second window can reduce the possibility of these periods overlapping and power signals unintentionally interfering with the supply induction element’s operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Joye, by temporally spacing the first time window and the second time window apart by at least half a period duration of the mains AC voltage, since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Lee (U.S. 20170353054 A1) discloses:
PNG
media_image5.png
771
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figures 4a and 4b (Lee)
PNG
media_image6.png
362
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 13 (Lee)
PNG
media_image7.png
353
423
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 22b (Lee)
An induction energy transmission system (Figs. 4a and 4b, “wireless power transmission device 100” [0116] and “wireless power reception device 200” [0117]), comprising:
a supply unit (Fig. 4a, “wireless power transmission device 100” [0116]) including a supply induction element (Fig. 4a, “a transmitting (Tx) coil 1111a” [0116]) designed to inductively provide energy and an inverter unit (Fig. 4a, “inverter 1112” [0125]) designed to operate the supply induction element (Fig. 4a, “a transmitting (Tx) coil 1111a” [0116]);
a small household appliance (Fig. 4b, “wireless power reception device 200” [0117]) including a receiving induction element (Fig. 4b “the reception coil (Rx coil) 2911a” [0117]) designed to receive inductively provided energy; and
a control unit (Fig. 4a, “power transmission control unit 112” [0080]) designed to control the inverter unit (Fig. 4a, “inverter 1112” [0125]), said control unit (Fig. 4a, “power transmission control unit 112” [0080]) being designed such as to interrupt in at least one operating state (Fig. 13, “power transfer phase 640” [0247]) for adjusting a supply power for the small household appliance (Fig. 4b, “wireless power reception device 200” [0117]) a provision of supply AC current (“AC current” [0127]) by the inverter unit (Fig. 4a, “inverter 1112” [0125]) for a first time window (Fig. 13, duration of “selection phase 610” through “identification and configuration phase 630” [0237]) within a control period (Fig. 13, “operation phases” [0218]) and to adapt in a second time (duration of “switching unit (not shown) to cut off power” period [0134]) window within the control period (Fig. 13, “operation phases” [0218]) at least one switching parameter (“off power” [0134]) of a switching parameter set (“off power” [0134]) of the inverter unit (Fig. 4a, “inverter 1112” [0125]).
The induction energy transmission system of claim 15, constructed in a form of an induction cooking system (See Figure 22b, “kitchen equipment” / “kitchen device” [0007-0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
08/19/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights