DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013/03/16, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024/01/31 and 2025/07/14 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: System and Method for Wirelessly Charging a Tire Sensor Battery Based on a Rotational Charging Angle Range.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim limitation “wireless power control means” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification discloses that the wireless power control means comprises a battery management part, a power transmission control part, and a detection sensor monitoring part (¶[0074]), but discloses no algorithm or structure, performed by the wireless power control means, for controlling the wireless power transmission means to satisfy a required charging amount in consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery for one rotation of the tire. The only disclosed structure tied to this function is the size of the coil patch of the wireless power transmission means (¶[0064]), which is not part of the wireless power control means. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as depending from a rejected claim, since each incorporates the indefinite "wireless power control means" limitation of claim 1 without curing it.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNCORO et al. (DOI: 10.3390/electronics10121424), in view of BEVELACQUA et al. (US 2019/0148984 A1), as evidenced by ESMAEELI et al. (DOI: 10.1115/1.4042398).
In re claim 1, KUNCORO discloses the following limitations:
a system for wirelessly charging at least one of tire sensors (Abstract: a wireless power transfer (WPT) system recharging the tire sensor battery/energy storage), the system comprising:
a wireless power transmission means (Figure 2b: Tx circuit module);
a wireless charging means (Figure 2b: Rx circuit module);
the wireless power transmission means disposed inside a tire wheel house of a vehicle (Figure 2a; Sec. 2.2: transmitter (Tx) coils mounted on the vehicle inner fender liner);
the wireless power transmission means configured to transmit wireless power to a charging region (Sec. 2.2: transmitter coils emit an electromagnetic field to transfer power to the receiver modules);
the wireless charging means disposed on an inner surface of a tire of the vehicle (Figure 2a; Sec. 2.2: receiver (Rx) coils and modules mounted on the vehicle tire inner wall);
the wireless charging means configured to receive the wireless power in a charging angle range for each rotation of the tire (Figure 10a–c; Sec. 3.1: five transmitter coils forming a half circle on the fender liner model, received via six receiver coils spaced around the tire model's outer perimeter);
the wireless charging means configured charge a battery provided in a detection sensor of the tire (Sec. 2.2: converted DC voltage utilized to recharge the tire sensor battery/energy storage);
KUNCORO does not expressly disclose a wireless power control means configured to control a wireless power transmission means to satisfy a required charging amount in consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery for one rotation of the tire.
BEVELACQUA teaches the following limitations:
a wireless power control means (FIG. 6: transmitter controller 606) configured to
control a wireless power transmission means to satisfy a required charging amount in consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery (¶s [0029, 0040]: transmitter controller 606 adjusts the voltage applied to the transmitter coil 302 to provide the power required by the end device 106, determined from sensed power consumption at the receiver's output).
ESMAEELI provides evidence for consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery on a per-tire-rotation basis (Eq. (4); p. 062007-3, Energy Demand: tire-sensor energy demand quantified in each rotation of the tire, commercial TPMS energy requirement given as 10 μJ/rev).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date (EFD), to add BEVELACQUA's wireless power control means to KUNCORO's wireless power transmission means, to adjust the voltage applied to the transmitter coils based on the power consumption sensed at the receiver, rather than emitting the electromagnetic field at a fixed level regardless of the receiver's actual demand.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNCORO et al. (DOI: 10.3390/electronics10121424), in view of BEVELACQUA et al. (US 2019/0148984 A1), and further in view of LI et al. (US 2019/0052103 A1), as evidenced by ESMAEELI et al. (DOI: 10.1115/1.4042398).
In re claim 2, KUNCORO discloses the wireless power transmission means (Figure 2b: Tx circuit module).
KUNCORO does not expressly disclose a power transmitting part having a size adjusted to provide a charging region in which the required charging amount is satisfied in consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery for one rotation of the tire.
LI teaches the following limitations:
a power transmitting part (¶[0003]: power transmitter (TX) coils), having
a size adjusted to provide a charging region (¶[0027]: TX coil width b determines the mesh-cell size covering a required charging area), in which
the required charging amount is satisfied in consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery (¶[0029]: effective charging area size is tied to a charging efficiency threshold of the wireless charging system, serving as the criterion for adequate power delivery to the receiver).
ESMAEELI provides evidence for consideration of the amount of consumption of the battery on a per-tire-rotation basis (Eq. (4); p. 062007-3, Energy Demand: tire-sensor energy demand quantified in each rotation of the tire, commercial TPMS energy requirement given as 10 μJ/rev).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to include LI's power transmitting part in KUNCORO's wireless power transmission means, in order to size the transmitter coils to adequately deliver power within the charging region.
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNCORO et al. (DOI: 10.3390/electronics10121424), in view of BEVELACQUA et al. (US 2019/0148984 A1), and further in view of TAGUCHI (US 2005/0253697 A1).
In re claim 4, KUNCORO is silent to the wireless power control means.
BEVELACQUA teaches the wireless power control means (FIG. 6: transmitter controller 606).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated, before the EFD, to add BEVELACQUA's wireless power control means to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, in order to optimize the efficiency of the power transfer to the detection sensor's battery.
BEVELACQUA does not expressly teach a power transmission control part and a detection sensor monitoring part.
TAGUCHI teaches the following limitations:
a power transmission control part (¶[0042]: ECU 30, drives transmission based on position and vehicle speed) configured to
determine the charging angle range according to the rotation of the tire (¶s [0036, 0042]: ECU 30 calculates transmitter/receiver position from vehicle speed, tracked as an angular location within one 360° tire rotation) and
control the wireless power transmission means to transmit the wireless power to the charging region corresponding to the charging angle range (¶s [0036, 0042]: ECU 30 drives transmission of the request signal only within the communication range, an angular portion of the tire's 360° rotation)
a detection sensor monitoring part (¶[0024]: ECU 30 connects to and receives data from the tire-side sensor unit) configured to
receive operation information of the detection sensor through an ECU of the vehicle (¶[0024]: chassis-side transmitter/receiver applies the tire sensor's response signal to ECU 30 as a voltage signal).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to add TAGUCHI's ECU, functioning as a combined power transmission control part and a detection sensor monitoring part, to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, to increase the rate of successful power reception each rotation while reducing power consumption from transmission outside the charging region.
In re claim 7, KUNCORO discloses the following limitations:
the wireless power transmission means (Figure 2b: Tx circuit module),
the wireless charging means (Figure 2b: Rx circuit module).
KUNCORO does not expressly disclose the wireless power control means, the wireless power transmission means being controlled to selectively transmit power to the charging region as the wireless charging means enters or exits the charging angle.
BEVELACQUA teaches the wireless power control means (FIG. 6: transmitter controller 606).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated, before the EFD, to add BEVELACQUA's wireless power control means to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, in order to optimize the efficiency of the power transfer to the detection sensor's battery.
BEVELACQUA does not expressly teach a power transmission control part controlling a wireless power transmission means.
TAGUCHI teaches the following limitations:
the power transmission control part (¶[0042]: ECU 30) controls a wireless power transmitter to selectively transmit the wireless power to the charging region (¶[0042]: ECU 30 drives the transmitter/receiver to transmit the request signal when within the communication range) as
a wireless power receiver enters or exits the charging angle range (¶[0042]: transmission of the request signal stops when the transmitter/receiver exits the communication range).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to add TAGUCHI's power transmission control part to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, to increase the rate of successful power reception each rotation while reducing power consumption from transmission outside the charging region.
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNCORO et al. (DOI: 10.3390/electronics10121424), in view of BEVELACQUA et al. (US 2019/0148984 A1), TAGUCHI (US 2005/0253697 A1), and further in view of KIM et al. (US 2020/0119581 A1).
In re claim 5, KUNCORO is silent to the wireless power control means.
BEVELACQUA teaches the wireless power control means (FIG. 6: transmitter controller 606).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated, before the EFD, to add BEVELACQUA's wireless power control means to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, in order to optimize the efficiency of the power transfer to the detection sensor's battery.
BEVELACQUA does not expressly teach a battery management part and the power transmission control part.
TAGUCHI teaches the power transmission control part (¶[0042]: ECU 30).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated, before the EFD, to add TAGUCHI's power transmission control part to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, to increase the rate of successful power reception each rotation while reducing power consumption from transmission outside the charging region.
TAGUCHI does not expressly teach a battery management part, and wherein the power transmission control part controls wireless power transmission for charging the battery on the basis of the battery residual amount.
KIM teaches the following limitations:
a battery management part (¶[0131]: wireless power receiving device 602) configured to
identify a battery residual amount of the detection sensor (¶[0131]: designated signal indicating full charge, necessarily reflecting identification of residual amount) and
wherein wireless power transmission for charging the battery is controlled on the basis of the battery residual amount (¶s [0130 – 0131]: transmission adjusted/deactivated based on receiving device's 602 remaining battery capacity).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to add KIM's charging-status-based power management to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, in order to prevent damage to the battery from overcharging.
In re claim 6, KUNCORO is silent to the battery management part and the power transmission control part.
TAGUCHI teaches the power transmission control part (¶[0042]: ECU 30).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated, before the EFD, to add TAGUCHI's power transmission control part to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, to increase the rate of successful power reception each rotation while reducing power consumption from transmission outside the charging region.
TAGUCHI does not expressly teach a battery management part; the power transmission control part receives charging information.
KIM teaches the following limitations:
the battery management part (¶[0131]: wireless power receiving device 602) provides
battery charging information to an electronic device (¶[0131]: wireless power receiving device 602 transmits designated signal to electronic device 601) so that
the battery residual amount is maintained within a preset range (¶s [0130 – 0131]: transmission adjusted/stopped per remaining-capacity threshold, maintaining residual amount).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to add KIM's charging-status-based power management to KUNCORO's wireless charging system, in order to prevent damage to the battery from overcharging.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNCORO et al. (DOI: 10.3390/electronics10121424), in view of TAGUCHI (US 2005/0253697 A1).
In re claim 8, KUNCORO discloses the following limitations:
a method of wirelessly charging a tire sensor (Abstract: tire sensor powering strategy adopts WPT technology to transfer power to an electrical load mounted on the rotational system without an interconnection cable), the method comprising:
a wireless power transmission step (Figure 2b: Tx circuit module) of
transmitting wireless power to the charging region (Sec. 2.2: transmitter coils emit an electromagnetic field to transfer power to the receiver modules),
a wireless power receiving step (Figure 2b: Rx circuit module) of
receiving wireless power from the charging region in the charging angle range according to the rotation of the tire (Figure 10a–c; Sec. 3.1: five transmitter coils forming a half circle on the fender liner model, received via six receiver coils spaced around the tire model's outer perimeter),
a battery charging step (Figure 2; Sec. 2.2) of
charging a battery of a detection sensor (Sec. 2.2: converted DC voltage utilized to recharge the tire sensor battery/energy storage).
KUNCORO does not expressly disclose a charging region setting step.
TAGUCHI teaches the following limitations:
a charging region setting step (¶[0036]: the ECU 30's communication-range determination process) of
setting a charging region in consideration of a charging angle range according to a rotation of a tire (¶[0036]: the communication range within which the ECU 30 communicates with a given tire-mounted transmitter/receiver is fixed at 100° of the tire's 360° rotation angle — i.e., a region defined in consideration of a charging angle range according to the tire's rotation).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to include TAGUCHI's charging region step to KUNCORO's method of wirelessly charging, in order to increase the rate of successful power reception each rotation while reducing power consumption from transmission outside the charging region.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNCORO et al. (DOI: 10.3390/electronics10121424), in view of TAGUCHI (US 2005/0253697 A1), and further in view of KIM et al. (US 2020/0119581 A1).
In re claim 10, KUNCORO discloses the following limitations:
the battery charging step (Figure 2; Sec. 2.2),
the wireless power transmission step (Figure 2b: Tx circuit module).
KUNCORO does not expressly disclose the battery charging step repeatedly performed from the wireless power transmission step; a charging requirement determination step; a charging maintenance determination step.
KIM teaches the following limitations:
a battery charging operation is repeatedly performed from a wireless power transmission operation (¶s [0130 – 0131]: electronic device 601 periodically switches transmission on/off based on the wireless power receiving device 602's remaining battery capacity),
a charging requirement determination step (¶[0131]: electronic device 601 and wireless power receiving device 602's remaining-battery-capacity determination process) of
determining whether the battery needs to be charged by recognizing a battery residual amount of the detection sensor prior to a wireless power transmission operation (¶[0131]: wireless power receiving device 602 identifies its own remaining battery capacity before sending the designated signal),
a charging maintenance determination step (¶s [0130 – 0131]: electronic device 601's periodic remaining-battery-capacity maintenance process) of
determining whether to maintain the charging by recognizing the battery residual amount of the detection sensor after performing a battery charging operation (¶s [0130 – 0131]: electronic device 601 maintains the remaining battery capacity near the first/second period threshold after transmission, based on the wireless power receiving device 602's reported capacity).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA, before the EFD, to add KIM's charging-status-based power management to KUNCORO's method of wirelessly charging, in order to prevent damage to the battery from overcharging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In re claim 3, though the prior art discloses
a charging angle range in which the wireless charging means receives wireless power for each rotation of the tire (KUNCORO – Figure 10a-c; Sec. 3.1: five transmitter coils forming a half circle on the fender liner model, received via six receiver coils spaced around the tire model's outer perimeter),
it fails to teach or further suggest the combination further including
determining the charging angle range on the basis of Expression 1, wherein
a
+
b
l
+
d
≤
θ
≤
k
+
b
l
,
tying the charging angle to the horizontal and vertical lengths of a coil patch, the outer radius of the tire, the spacing distance between the tire and the coil patch, and a density of a metal mesh in the tire.
In re claim 9, though the prior art discloses
a charging region setting step that determines a charging angle range according to rotation of the tire (TAGUCHI – FIGS. 7, 8; ¶[0036]: the ECU 30's communication-range determination process, the communication range is 100° relative to one rotation angle 360° of the tire 1),
it fails to teach or further suggest the combination further including
determining the charging angle range on the basis of Expression 1, wherein
a
+
b
l
+
d
≤
θ
≤
k
+
b
l
,
tying the charging angle to the horizontal and vertical lengths of a coil patch, the outer radius of the tire, the spacing distance between the tire and the coil patch, and a density of a metal mesh in the tire.
Prior Art Disclaimer
The prior art applied in this Office Action includes foreign patent documents that were originally published in languages other than English. Machine-generated translations of these documents were utilized to assess their relevance and content.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JU (WO 2018/038572 A1): discloses a transmitter positioned on the vehicle body adjacent the wheel (¶s[0054, 0063]), and an ECU (¶[0034]). Its receiver is disclosed on the wheel rim (¶s[0012, 0057]), and its antennas are described as always facing each other (¶[0056]).
WON (KR 10-1430068 B1): discloses a wireless power transmission and information receiver that transmits power based on charging status information received from a pressure sensor, and charges the pressure sensor based on that received charging status information (¶[0029]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
