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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants’ specification (figs 3-4; par 45-46) discloses two different interruption types, with the only apparent difference being that the interruption in the second (figure 4) is slightly longer than the first (figure 3). The specification (namely, par 46) clearly discloses that both interruption windows can have a first (communication) operation and a second (foreign object detection) operation.
The language of claim 14 only broadly recites that the first interruption time window is “for the wireless communication” – the claim does not actually recite any actual communication. Further, the claim does not explicitly exclude foreign object detection from occurring in the first interruption time window. The transitional phrase, “comprising”, in the preamble of claim 14 is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. MPEP §2111.03(I). Thus, claim 14 may be interpreted as having the first interruption time window also comprise the supply of a detection signal. In other words, both interruptions are for hypothetical communication and the supply of the detection signal.
With this interpretation, the two interruption time windows are exactly the same. The ordinal numbering does not introduce any subject matter into one that is not present in the other. The only requirement in the claim is that the second comes after the first. But there are a plurality of interruption time windows and some windows are inherently after others. One or more windows towards the beginning are the “first” and any one or more windows towards the end are the “second”.
The Applicants do not dispute that Lulofs discloses the plurality of temporally repeating interruption time windows and that, during these interruptions, the control unit communicates and supplies detection signals for foreign object detection. The first few of these repeating interruption time windows are “first” ones and the next few are “second” ones, thereby satisfying the claim language.
The Applicants do not separately argue against the secondary references – either for what they disclose or how they are combined with Lulofs – or any of the rejections of the dependent claims.
The art rejection is maintained.
The §112(b) rejection is maintained. The Applicants’ remarks do not include any substantive discussion of how the amendment overcomes the indefiniteness. If the Applicants require additional assistance in resolving this issue, they are invited to contact the Examiner to set up a telephone interview. Additional §112(b) rejections are provided as a result issues created by the amendments.
The Applicants are reminded of proper rules for annotations; namely that all deleted language much be included and either have double brackets [[ ]] or have
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because the control unit’s configuration, in the second interruption time window paragraph, is written in a confusing manner. While it is an apparatus claim and does not list specific method steps, the claim would be clearer if it recited “wherein the control unit is configured to stop the inductive supply of energy and to supply a detection signa l to one of the supply induction elements…”. As disclosed in the specification, stopping the power comes before supplying the detection signal.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14, 16-18, 20-27, 29-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 27 are indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicants are claiming the foreign object detection or not. The claim recites that the control unit is configured to supply a detection signal (remedying a previous issue). But the claim does not give the control unit any additional configurations to sense/detect the resulting resonance frequency or make the determination about the presence of a foreign object.
Claim 14 incorrectly recites “the detection signal being configured to detect a foreign object”. The underlined is incorrect, as the detection signal is just a signal. A signal can have a configuration, but this would be a description of its properties (frequency, amplitude, etc.). A signal cannot be configured to detect. Rather, the signal interacts with a foreign object so that the control unit can sense the effect on the resonant frequency and then make a determination about the presence (or absence) of the object.
The same language, and resulting indefiniteness, appears in claim 27.
Claims 16-18 and 20-26 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 14. Claims 29-30 and 33 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 27.
Claim 27 is also indefinite because it still improperly associates the ordered method steps with the wrong generic (non-ordered) step.
As written, the claim incorrectly recites that the supplying of energy is done by interrupting that same energy (“inductively supply energy [] by interruption an operation of the inverter” – this is wrong).
Claim 27, lines 3-4 clearly establish the method of supplying energy to a placeable unit. This method step recites the driving of the induction elements – this inherently creates the inductively supply of energy to the placeable unit regardless of whether or not the Applicants use the words or not.
The three method steps at the end of the claim (interrupting, supplying, operating) are the process for detecting a foreign object, not for inductively supplying energy to the placeable unit.
Claims 29-30 and 33 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 27.
Claim 27 is indefinite because the “supplying” method step is incorrect. The claim recites competing one action (“supplying a detection signal”) “by” completing a different action (“interrupting an operation of the inverter unit”). This is incorrect for at least two reasons:
Grammatically. The two actions are not the same and one doesn’t create the other. They are two different steps that must be carried out in a specific order: 1) interrupt power; 2) supply the detection signal. The claim needs to recite these as two distinct method steps.
Logically: The specification states that, to create the detection signal, “the control unit 20a drives the inverter unit 18a to a brief operation” (par 46). Thus, the detection signal is supplying by operating the inverter unit (not by interrupting it).
Claims 29-30 and 33 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 27.
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.
Claims 14, 20, 23-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lulofs (US 2024/0213816) in view of Azukawa (US 2017/0005524) and Kim (US 2018/0159371).
With respect to claim 14, Lulofs discloses an induction energy supply device (fig 1-2, 7-8; par 67-113), comprising:
a supply unit (see fig 2) comprising supply induction elements (103; par 163, “singular references do not exclude a plurality.”), the supply induction elements configured to inductively provide energy to a placeable unit (the receiver 105-107 shown in figure 1);
an inverter unit (201) configured to provide an alternating current to drive the supply induction elements;
a control unit (205, 207, 209) configured to control the inverter unit (see arrow from 205 to 201) and comprising a communication unit (207) for wireless communication between the control unit and the placeable unit, said control unit configured to interrupt an operation of the inverter unit top stop the inductive supply of energy at temporally repeating intervals during an interruption time window in a first control period (see fig 7-8; par 97-99; fig 8, item 801) for the wireless communication (hypothetical “for” function that is not actually carried out; regardless, see Lulofs par 98, first sentence; fig 8, items 807, 809, 811),
wherein the control unit is configured to supply a detection signal to one of the induction supply elements (par 78; “controller 205 is in particular arranged to control the generation of the drive signal by the driver 201”) and to stop the inductive supply of energy (fig 8, item 801) within a second interruption time window in a second control period following the first control period (Lulofs, par 98, discloses repeating time frames),
the detection signal being configured to detect a foreign object in a vicinity of one of the supply induction elements (par 98).
wherein the control unit is configured to operate the inverter unit during transition time windows (fig 8, the 1ms after 805 and before 803) temporally immediately following the interruption time window (805) and the second interruption time window (a subsequent 805) at an adjusted power level and then increase the power over a temporal duration of the transition time window (see ramp up between 805 and 803).
Lulofs discloses a transmitter with repeating interruption windows. During each interruption window, there is communication and foreign object detection (par 98). At the end of each interruption window, there is a ramp up of power supply. Lulofs discloses foreign object detection, but does not expressly disclose how to carry it out. Lulofs also does not expressly disclose the controller comprises a storage unit. Azukawa discloses an induction energy supply device (fig 1, 16; par 26-43, 69-73), comprising:
a supply unit (2) comprising supply induction elements (fig 16 shows the plurality) at least one of the supply induction elements configured to inductively provide energy to a placeable unit (the receiver);
an inverter unit (131) configured to provide an alternating current to drive the supply induction elements;
a control unit (132) configured to control the inverter unit (par 37) and comprising a storage unit (133), the control unit configured to supply a detection signal (par 36, 40 – the command to complete the frequency sweep is interpreted as the detection signal) to one of the supply induction elements;
wherein the detection signal [sic - control unit] being configured to detect a foreign object (par 41) in the vicinity of one of the supply induction elements by detecting a change in a resonance frequency of the supply unit (par 38, “the frequencies of the voltage and the current” is the “resonance frequency”, as supported by par 26-29; see also par 69, “perform power transmission at opposite phases and at the same fixed frequency” – one coil is activated and a second coil is operated as a sensor – while this language was deleted, this citation to Azukawa is maintained for clarity of the record).
Azukawa discloses a wireless power transmitter that completes foreign object in the vicinity of two coils by providing a detection signal to one coil and sensing resonant frequency changes at the other (and then sharing the result). When combined, the Azukawa foreign object detection (detection signal and frequency detection) would be provided during the Lulofs interruption time window (i.e. when that reference carries out its foreign object detection).
Lulofs and Azukawa are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with foreign object detection. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Lulofs to include the resonant frequency detection-based foreign object detection taught by Azukawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the blanks in the Lulofs disclosure. Lulofs states that foreign objection detection is carried out, but does not detail how. Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art to understand how this can be successfully achieved. Azukawa provides the necessary teachings for the skilled artisan to apply foreign object detection to Lulofs, with a reasonable expectation of success.
At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Lulofs to include the storage unit, as taught by Azukawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to remember information long enough to compare it and report it to the user.
Lulofs does not expressly the control unit is configured to operate the inverter, in the transition time window, at an adjusted power frequency that is higher than the target power frequency. Kim discloses an induction energy supply device (fig 1, 3; par 68-89, 167-184), comprising: a supply unit (324), an inverter (322), and a control unit (312) configured to operate the inverter unit at an adjusted power frequency (fig 8-9, “b”; fig 10, any of the frequencies that is not the left-most one; at least par 177-178) that is higher than a target power frequency (fig 8-9, “a”; fig 10, left-most frequency).
Kim discloses a known correlation between wireless power transmission frequency and transmitted power. There exists a frequency for which power transmission is maximum and for any frequency higher than this, power decreases and frequency increases. Kim teaches that a control unit is “designed” to control the inverter to output many different frequencies including an “adjusted” frequency that is higher than a “target” frequency. For whatever time the Kim control unit selects a higher frequency, the transmitter is interpreted as being in a “transition time window”.
Lulofs and Kim are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with inverter frequency control. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Lulofs control unit to include the configuration to operate at an adjusted frequency, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to control power. The prior art teaches that power can be controlled through frequency regulation – thus, the skilled artisan would have considered that for Lulofs.
With respect to claim 20, Lulofs discloses the control unit is configured to arrange the transition time window and the first interruption time window temporally immediately adjoining one another (see fig 8).
With respect to claim 23, Lulofs discloses the control unit is configured, during the second interruption time window, to carry out at least one further operation (par 98). Claim 14 already recites the foreign object detection. It is unclear what other function the Applicants intend to include here.
With respect to claim 24, Lulofs discloses the further operation comprises detecting the foreign object in the vicinity of the supply induction elements (par 98).
With respect to claim 25, Lulofs discloses the placeable unit is configured as a small household appliance (par 1).
With respect to claim 26, Lulofs discloses the placeable unit is configured as a cooking equipment item (par 1). The claim does not define what type of “cooking”. Lulofs’ disclosure of a kitchen appliance meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of an equipment item that is to be used for cooking.
With respect to claims 27 and 33, Lulofs, Azukawa and Kim combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 14 and 24, respectively.
Claim 27 recites providing wireless communication between “one of the supply inductive elements” and the placeable unit (claim 14 only broadly refers to communication between the control unit and placeable unit – it doesn’t recite how it is accomplished). Lulofs discloses in-band communication (par 79) and, thus, teaches this limitation.
Claim 27 differs from claim 14 in that the detection signal is not required to be sent to a different induction element than where the resonance frequency sensing occurs.
Claims 16-18, 21-22 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lulofs in view of Azukawa, Kim and Joye (US 2016/0156232).
With respect to claim 16, Lulofs discloses the first interruption time window (see fig 8), but does not expressly disclose how long it is. Joye discloses an induction energy supply device (fig 1, 3, 5; par 151-206), comprising:
a supply unit (see fig 3) comprising a supply induction element (103) configured to inductively provide energy to a placeable unit (105-107);
an inverter unit (301) configured to provide an alternating current to drive the supply induction element;
a control unit (303, 305, 309) configured to control the inverter unit (see arrow from 303 to 301) and comprising a communication unit (305) for wireless communication between the control unit and the placeable unit, said control unit configured to interrupt an operation of the inverter unit at temporally repeating intervals during an interruption time window for the wireless communication (see fig 5; par 135, 184-187);
Joye discloses that the transmitter has two types of time intervals: a power time interval with full transmission power; and a reduced power time interval that includes “the power transfer signal may be completely switched off” (par 135). Figure 5 shows how the two intervals alternate.
Joye further discloses a duration of the interruption time window is at least 1.0 ms (par 180-182). Joye discloses that the “time frame” (the power interval plus the interrupt interval) can be between 5-200ms and the ratio of power:interrupt is 2:1, 3:1, 5:1 or 10:1. Within these possible ranges and ratios, Joye obviously discloses setting the interruption time window to > 1ms.
The combination (Lulofs and Kim) and Joye are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with inverter timing control. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination to include the at least 1ms interruption time window, as taught by Joye. The motivation for doing so would have been to select from known communication time durations with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 17, Joye discloses the control unit is configured to extend a duration of the interruption time window for reducing the inductively provided energy (par 180-182). Joye discloses various ratios, and therefore, discloses extending the interruption time window duration (i.e. changing the ratio from 2:1 to 3:1). The references are analogous, as discussed above.
Further, claims 16-17 are mutually exclusive (they separately depend from claim 14). During the combination, there would be at least one time where Joye changes the length of the Lulofs interruption time window. As this lengthened interruption window occurred during use – this would be the “second” interruption window that is longer than a previously occurring “first” interruption window (at the original length).
With respect to claim 18, Joye discloses the control unit is configured to space successive first and second interruption time windows temporally by at least a half period duration of a mains alternating voltage (par 182). The Joye repetition frequency is between 5-200Hz. This equates to the spacing between interrupt windows of 200ms (5Hz) and 5ms (200Hz). In the United States, mains AC voltage is 60Hz (half a period is 8.3ms). Joye’s possible spacing (5-200ms) clearly satisfies “at least” 8.3ms. The references are analogous, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 21-22, Kim teaches that the transition time window affects the amount of transmitted power (par 177-178). Thus, the duration of the transition time window is a result effective variable. MPEP §2144.05. The longer the window, the less power/energy is transmitted (because a higher frequency is selected for a longer time). Thus, it would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the length of the Kim transition time window. This would obviously include the situation (purposeful or coincidental) where a duration of the combination’s first transition time window is at least one duration of the interruption time window (claim 21) or less than half a period of the mains AC voltage (claim 22).
Furthermore, Joye teaches the obviousness of changing the length of the interruption time window (see art rejections of claims 16-17). Thus, the combination (of all three references) teaches how to adjust the time windows to satisfy the claimed relationship.
For claim 21, setting the transition time to be equal to or greater than the interruption time would have been obvious given the power needs of the receiver.
For claim 22, setting the transition time to be less than half of the AC mains frequency (half of 60Hz is a time of 0.0333 seconds).
With respect to claims 29-30, the four references combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 17-18, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights