DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims amendments do remove an ambiguity from the claims (Remarks, page 9, last paragraph), but at least two other issues remain.
First, the Applicants’ response does not address Joye figure 5 (cited in the art rejection of claim 21). In figure 5, Joye discloses that discontinuing the generation of the drive signal occurs after the first communication signal (i.e. the communication created by the initiator). Namely, figure 5 shows: power – initiator communication – power – target communication. The first power signal and any portion of the initiator communication are interpreted as the “power transfer interval”, while the rest of the initiator communication, the second power signal and the target communication are interpreted as the “communication transfer interval”. This interpretation satisfies the wherein clauses of the independent claims.
Second, the wherein clauses of the independent claims are replete with passive language (“is [function]”). They describe things that happened – not distinct actions taken by the apparatus/method. This is more critical in claim 21. For example, claim 21 recites, “wherein generating the drive signal is discontinued during the communication time interval”. This passive language refers to something that happened – not what the method is doing. This language also does not prohibit the occurrence of other discontinuations, such as after the first power signal mentioned above (that comes immediately prior to the initiator communicating). This interpretation is further supported by the open-ended transitional phrase, comprising, in the preamble. §2111.03(I).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/active-vs-passive-voice-difference
The issue is that the claims are describing what happened to the signals (power, communication). Instead, they should be defining the specific actions taken by the driver circuit, communication circuit and/or controller circuit. More direct language would also help the Applicants clearly define that the drive signal is maintained throughout the entirety of the power transfer interval (as opposed to describing one time when it was started and another time when it was stopped).
The claim amendments appear to be directed to figure 11 (instead of figure 9) – where the communication begins before the drive signal stops (i.e. the NFC communication 1101 starts to the left of the left-most dotted line in figure 11). It does not appear that the prior art teaches or suggests the specific order of power/data control to create this specific timeline (with the condition that the data/communication is out-of-band). The claims, however, remain broader than their figures and are not allowable at this time. The Examiner is available to discuss possible claim amendments to overcome these last issues.
The art rejection is maintained, but: (1) with citations for Joye’s power/communication intervals made only to figure 5 (citations to figure 6 are removed); and (2) Muratov is withdrawn as a reference because the Joye decay is no longer part of the analysis.
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 1-13, 15-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joye (US 2016/0156232) in view of Joye (“Joye II”; US 2016/0181818).
With respect to claim 1, Joye discloses a power transmitter (fig 3, 5, 12; par 122-135, 151-189, 244-256) comprising:
an output circuit comprising a transmitter coil (103) arranged to transfer power to a power receiver via a power transfer signal in response to a drive signal;
a driver circuit (301; par 152-153) arranged to generate the drive signal;
a communicator circuit (305; par 128-133, 154, 156-159, 170-205), wherein the communication circuit is configured to transmit a first communication signal (par 127) to the power receiver and to receive a second communication signal using load modulation (par 123) from the power receiver;
a controller circuit (303 and 309) arranged to control the driver circuit (see arrow between 303 and 301; par 153) and the communicator circuit (see arrow between 303 and 305) so as to control power transfer and communication with the power receiver in a repeating time frame (see fig 5-6 and additional citations, below),
wherein:
the repeating time frame comprises at least a power transfer time interval and a communication time interval (see fig 5 and the annotated version of figure 5, below – the solid vertical line annotated by the Examiner indicates the boundary between the power interval to the left and the communication interval to the right; see also Joye par 171);
the driver circuit is arranged to generate the drive signal to transfer power to the power receiver during the power transfer interval (par 135, 173 –annotated figure shows power starting/being-generated to the left of the vertical line);
the controller circuit is arranged to control the communication circuit to transmit the first communication signal during the power transfer time inverter (par 130; annotated figure shows that outgoing communication occurs/begins to the left of the vertical line);
the controller circuit is arranged to control the driver circuit to discontinue generating the drive signal during the second time interval (annotated figure shows the discontinuation of power to the right of the vertical line; par 171, 176, 250-252);
the controller circuit is arranged to control the communicator circuit to discontinue transmission of the first communication signal during the communication time interval (annotated figure shows the initiator communication ending/discontinued to the right of the vertical line); and
the communication circuit is arranged to receive the second communication signal from the power receiver during the communication time interval (fig 5, communication on “target” line is to the right of the vertical line; par 176, 179).
Joye discloses a wireless power transmitter that includes a controller for operating the transmitter with repeating power transfer and communication time intervals. These intervals include more than one of the labeled “windows” in Joye figure 5. The Examiner notes that the Applicants have amended claim 1 to recite that communication occurs in the power transfer time window (see fourth to last wherein clause). Similarly, the claim establishes that the drive signal is actively provided (to create wireless power transmission) during the communication time interval. thus, the language of the claim establishes that “power transfer” and “communication” are not exclusive definitions to limit what functionality is included within the named time window.
Joye refers to power (Window P) and communication (Window Z) windows. Grouping these windows together to form “time intervals” is not a modification of the reference. It is simply a grouping of actions that the reference already takes. No structural or functional modifications are necessary to examine how Joye’s windows can be grouped into two separate time intervals.
PNG
media_image1.png
350
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Joye figure 5 is annotated to include a boundary to separate its windows into two intervals. To the left is the “power transfer time interval” during which: (1) the driver circuit generates the drive signal (the beginning of the Window P that extends off to the left of the figure); and (2) the communication circuit transmits the first communication signal (the initiator comms). To the right is the “communication time interval”, during which: (3) the driver circuit discontinues generating the drive signal; (4) the communicator circuit discontinues the first communication signal; and (5) the communication circuit receives the second communication signal (from the target). Thus, all five wherein clauses (numbered 1-5, above) are disclosed by Joye.
As noted above, the five wherein clauses at the end of the claim are written broadly by only passively referring to actions that happen in each time window – they do not clearly and explicitly recite that a component takes a distinct action, the order in which actions are taken, and that no other actions, unnamed actions are taken (i.e. the drive signal isn’t also discontinued in the power transfer time interval and then resumed in the communication time interval). The “comprising” transitional phrase does not prohibit additional elements from being included within the claim, such as the multiple on/offs of the drive signal, as noted above.
The addition of a line to separate the plurality of windows into two distinct time intervals is not a modification of Joye’s disclosure or of either windows (Window P or Z).
Joye does not expressly disclose its communicator circuit is arranged to use “amplitude modulation” for outgoing “first” communication signals (see, for example, par 159 where Joye mentions transmitter to receiver NFC communication, but does not mention the type of modulation). Joye II discloses a power transmitter (fig 3; par -133-172) comprising:
an output circuit comprising a transmitter coil (103) arranged to generate a power transfer signal in response to a drive signal applied to the output circuit;
a driver circuit (301) arranged to generate the drive signal;
a communicator circuit (305), wherein
the communicator circuit is arranged to transmit messages to a power receiver using amplitude modulation (par 169);
the communication circuit is to receive messages from the power receiving using load modulation (par 169).
Joye and Joye II are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transfer systems with NFC communication. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Joye to include the “amplitude modulation”, as taught by Joye II. The motivation for doing so would have been to “fill in the blanks” in the Joye disclosure and use a known and proven communication method, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change a transmission time of the first communication signal in response to a timing property of the communication time interval (par 181-182). Communication would obviously need to continue until the receiver fully responds. This could obviously include extending the number of repeated intervals – thereby changing the transmission time of the first communication signal because of the need for more information from the second communication signal (which is a property of the communication time interval).
With respect to claim 4, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change at least one of the transmission time of the first communication signal and a timing property of the communication time interval in response to a property of the first communication signal (par 181-182; same as in claim 2). By adding more power time intervals (because the system requires more communication time intervals to receive more data), there would be more first communication signals – these added signals have a new (i.e. changed) transmission time and/or timing property.
With respect to claim 5, Joye discloses the property of the first communication signal is at least one of a length of the first communication signal and a property of at least one response message to the first communication signal (yes).
The Joye first communication signal is obviously a function of a response message to previous iterations of the first communication signal.
Alternatively, claim 4 sets forth two alternatives for what the controller circuit changes: (1) transmission time; or (2) timing property. As Joye discloses the change in the transmission time, it is not also required to teach changes to the specific timing properties listed in claim 5.
With respect to claim 3, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change a timing property of the communication time interval (par 181-182; provides the possible timing properties that the synchronizer circuit can select from).
With respect to claim 6, Joye discloses the timing property is a duration of the communication time interval (par 181-182, the duration is between 5ms and 200ms).
With respect to claim 7, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change the duration of the communication time interval in response to a communication rate of the first communication signal and the response message (see art rejection of claim 5). The second communication signal (from the target) is a response to the first communication signal (from the initiator). By changing parameters of the outgoing first communication signal, Joye can obviously create more data (a longer message) that needs to be received in response.
With respect to claim 8, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to change the timing property in response to a property of the response message (see art rejection of claim 5).
With respect to claim 9, Joye discloses
a varying power supply signal is supplied to the driver circuit (par 114 – claim does not recite who/what supplies this varying power supply signal –passive voice should be avoided in the claims), and
the controller circuit is arranged to change the timing property in response to a variation in the varying power supply signal (par 38).
Joye discloses a varying transmission frequency – this indicates the driver circuit is supplied with a varying power supply signal. The frequency of the communication interval needs to be at least twice that of the transmission frequency. Thus, the Joye controller is arranged to change the timing property of the communication interval in response to the varying power supply signal (transmission frequency).
With respect to claim 10, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to align a center of the communication time interval with a time interval corresponding to a signal minimum for the varying power supply signal (par 38, 182). Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to set the start and length of the communication interval. This is interpreted as obviously including values that align it (its beginning, its center, its end) to “a time interval corresponding to” a signal minimum.
The claim does not recite any sensors or measurement devices so that the controller circuit would know or have any awareness of specific values to which it needs to adjust the communication interval timing. Thus, the claim is interpreted as including a coincidental timing.
Further, the claim does not recite what type of relationship is included in claim. The center of the communication interval is aligned with “a time interval”. This time interval is not defined in the claim. For the purpose of the art rejection, any time that satisfies the stated alignment in Joye is interpreted as the “a time interval”. Additional support for this interpretation can be found in that the time interval is only broadly “corresponding to” a signal minimum (another unclearly defined time). The basis for where to define the time interval is not clearly set in the claim. The repeated modification of this time interval broadens the claim to the point where Joye can be observed and the skilled artisan can calculate a “time interval” to satisfy the recited limitations.
The Applicants do not address or rebut these interpretations; thus, they are presumed to be correct.
With respect to claim 11, Joye discloses the duration of the communication time interval is between 5ms and 200ms (par 182). Joye does not expressly disclose a communication time interval of less than 1ms. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Joye to further reduce its timing interval. The motivation for doing so would have been to change the duty cycle and provide more power. Joye (par 180) sets forth various relationships between the length of time of power and communication windows. Based on this, the skilled artisan would have: a) recognized that other values are also possible; and b) understood that the length of time of the various windows, which defines the length of the larger communication time interval, is a result effective variable. MPEP §2144.05. Through routine experimentation, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a communication time interval of less than 1ms. Changing the length of time of an interval does not change any of the Joye structure. It also produces expected and predictable results.
With respect to claim 12, Joye discloses the controller circuit is arranged to terminate the communication time interval in response to a detection of an end of the response message (see fig 5-6; the communication interval “Z” ends/terminals after the a each response message (shown on the “target” line).
With respect to claim 13, Joye, as modified by Muratov, discloses:
wherein the power transfer time interval comprises a power down interval (the decay slope taught by Muratov),
wherein the power down interval occurs prior to the communication time interval (see annotated figure in the art rejection of claim 1),
wherein the controller circuit is arranged to control the power transmitter to transmit the first communication signal during a portion of the power down interval (see annotated figure, above).
As discussed above, the Muratov decay (figs 6-13) creates a “power down interval” in Joye. This would result in figures 5-6 having a gradual sloping end to the power intervals, instead of a defined vertical line. This power down interval would be long enough to overlap with at least part of the first communication signal.
With respect to claims 21 and 15-19, Joye and Joye II 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 1-6, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, the Joye functionality and method steps are autonomous, satisfying the limitation of a computer program stored in memory that is to be executed by a processor. The combination of references combine to teach the recited functionality, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. While claim 22 is written in terms of functionality, it mirrors claim 1 (not claim 22 with its penultimate wherein).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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