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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saunamaki (US 20110057606).
With respect to claims 1, 11, 13, 16 and 18 Saunamaki teaches a wireless charging station (100) comprising: a power transmitting antenna (120); a controller (103/105); a distance-to-user tool (see 105/106) of the controller to determine a distance (paragraph 31-40) between a user and the wireless charging station; and an output power control (see 105 controls power to transmission coil 120) of the controller to adjust an output power of the power transmitting antenna based on the determined distance (paragraph 033) between the user and the wireless charging station, wherein the output power control decreases the output power as the determined distance decreases and increases the output power as the determined distance increases, including decreasing the output power to a minimum setting (see power off or smallest step 1 paragraph 0033-34) when the determined distance is within a first range closest to the wireless charging station, increasing the output power to a medium setting (see level 2, 3 and 4 paragraph 0035-36) when the determined distance is within a second range larger than the first range, and increasing the output power to a maximum setting (power level 5) when the determined distance is larger than the second range.
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.
Claim 3, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunamaki in view of Leabman (US 20170077995).
With respect to claim 3, 12 and 17 Saunamaki teaches a controller and provides data (paragraph 0052-58) to the distance-to-user tool to determine the distance between the user and the wireless charging station, however, does not teach a transceiver or network interface to communicate with a set of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Leabman teaches a transceiver or network interface (see paragraph 0093) to communicate with a set of Internet of Things (IoT) devices (see paragraphs 0114-116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to include the IoT (smart sensors) for the benefit of improving coverage and providing additional distance information to increase safety.
Claims 4, 7-10, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunamaki in view of Bell et al. (US 20170077764).
With respect to claim 4, 14 and 19 Saunamaki teaches adjusting the output power control however does not teach adjusts the output power of the power transmitting antenna based on a type of the user determined to be within a risk distance of the wireless charging station. Bell teaches adjusts the output power of the power transmitting antenna based on a type (see human, child) of the user determined to be within a risk distance (see paragraph 0111) of the wireless charging station. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify to reduce power accurately and improve safety and charging.
With respect to claim 7 Saunamaki teaches the power station however does not teach a server. Bell teaches the known use of a server (paragraph 0109) in communication with the controller via a network interface, wherein the distance-to- user tool is to communicate with an information collector and engine of the server (paragraph 308-310) to determine the distance between the user and the wireless charging station and the output power control to receives instructions from the server for adjusting the output power of the power transmitting antenna. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to include the known use of a server for central monitoring and coordination.
With respect to claim 8 Saunamaki teaches the know use of a server. Bell teaches the known use of a server comprises a risk distance repository listing (paragraph 140 models in server) recommended safe distances for different users (paragraph 0139) and associated output power levels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to include the use of server for central coordination of safety models for each user.
With respect to claims 9, 15 and 20 Saunamaki teaches the charging station however does not teach the use of profiles. Bell teaches the server comprises user profiles (see configuration files and prestored data paragraph 0083) for the different users (paragraph 0139 see classification data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to include server interface to increase the identification of a user and apply safety levels quickly.
With respect to claim 10 Saunamaki teaches the charging station however does not teach the server. Bell teaches the instructions from the server includes an instruction to increase (paragraph 0310-313) the output power of the power transmitting antenna. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to include the use of sever for instructions for central coordination of updating and instructing models across the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunamaki in view of Sherman et al. (US 20200403453).
With respect to claims 4, 14 and 19 Saunamaki teaches distance and adjusting power however does not teach the risk distance. Sherman teaches the output power control adjusts the power output of the power transmitting antenna based on a type of the user (paragraph 0057 human, pet, bodies or animal) determined to be within a risk distance of the wireless charging station. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to reduce power accurately and improve safety and charging.
Claim 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunamaki in view of Drucker (US 20130172039).
With respect to claims 4-5 Saunamaki teaches the adjusting the output power control however does not teach adjusts the output power of the power transmitting antenna based on a type of the user determined to be within a risk distance of the wireless charging station. Drucker teaches adjusts the output power of the power transmitting antenna based on a type (see adult, child) of the user determined to be within a risk distance (see paragraph 0046) of the wireless charging station. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to reduce power accurately and improve safety and charging.
With respect to claim 5 Drucker teaches a first user category has a first risk distance (adult) and a second user (child) category has a second risk distance greater than the first risk distance, the second user category having a higher sensitivity to an electromagnetic field of the wireless charging station than the first user category (paragraph 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to provide safe levels to different user categories.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunamaki in view of Drucker (US 20130172039) in view of Gree (CN 112485779).
With respect to claim 6 Saunamaki as modified by Drucker teaches the categories of a child and adult, however, does not teach a third user category having an even higher sensitivity to the electromagnetic field of the wireless charging station than the second user category. Gree teaches (detailed description paragraphs 14-20) a third user category (pregnant woman / non pregnant) having an even higher sensitivity to the electromagnetic field of the wireless charging station than the second user category. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Saunamaki to provide a third category as seen in Gree for the benefit of minimizing power to high risk groups.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
