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
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Remarks contend the operation in Sherman is fundamentally different from the claimed operation. The Remarks (at 10) contend Sherman does not teach wherein the output power control decreases the output power as the determined distance decreases and increases the output power as the determined distance increases. However, the operation of Sherman teaches wherein the output power control decreases (see reducing paragraph 0039) the output power as the determined distance decreases (present within vicinity) and increases the output power as the determined distance increases (increases to level no longer within vicinity). Therefore, the claims are taught in the prior art and the rejection has been made FINAL.
The 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the present amendments.
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 1-2, 4, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20210376664).
With respect to claim 1, 11, 16 and 18 Park teaches a wireless charging station comprising: a power transmitting antenna (for example 111 or 310); a controller (320); a distance-to-user tool (paragraph 0073-74) of the controller to determine a distance (paragraph 0102, 114) between a user and the wireless charging station; and an output power control of the controller to adjust an output power (reduce amplitude/magnitude for example paragraph 0014-17) a power output of the power transmitting antenna based on the determined distance between the user and the wireless charging station, wherein the output power control decreases (see transition seen in Fig. 14A/B see Fig. 16) the output power as the determined distance decreases and increases the output power as the determined distance increases (see distance change for example seen in Fig. 16A/B).
With respect to claim 2 and 13 Park teaches a distance detector to output data to the distance-to-user tool to determine the distance between the user and the wireless charging station, wherein the output power control reduces the output power to a minimum setting (reduce to a high degree paragraph 0114) when the determined distance is within a first range closest to the wireless charging station, increases the output power to a medium setting (reduce to a low degree) when the determined distance is within a second range larger than the first range, and increases the output power to a maximum setting (no reduction) when the determined distance is within a third range larger than the second range.
With respect to claim 4, 14 and 19 Park teaches the output power control adjusts the output power output of the power transmitting antenna based on a type (paragraph 0111) of the user determined to be within a risk distance of the wireless charging station.
Claims 1, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (US 20210135505).
With respect to claim 1, 11, 16 and 18 Pan teaches a wireless charging station comprising: a power transmitting antenna (for example 111 or 310); a controller (see Fig. 6 for example); a distance-to-user tool (adjustment component) of the controller to determine a distance (paragraph 46) between a user and the wireless charging station; and an output power control of the controller to adjust an output power (paragraph 0059) a power output of the power transmitting antenna based on the determined distance between the user and the wireless charging station, wherein the output power control decreases (see paragraph 0050-51) the output power as the determined distance decreases and increases the output power as the determined distance increases (see dynamic and real time adjustments).
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherman et al. (US 20200403453).
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 16 Sherman teaches a wireless charging station comprising: a power transmitting antenna (see 124); a controller (110); a distance-to-user tool of the controller to determine a distance between a user (paragraph 0056, 0046) and the wireless charging station (Fig. 2); and an output power control of the controller to adjust (paragraph 0039 and 0062) a power output of the power transmitting antenna based on the determined distance (see Fig. 3) between the user and the wireless charging station, station, wherein the output power control decreases (see reducing paragraph 0039) the output power as the determined distance decreases (present within vicinity) and increases the output power as the determined distance increases (increases to level no longer within vicinity).
With respect to claims 4, 14 and 19 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.
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 7-10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Leabman (US 20180048178).
With respect to claim 7 Park teaches the known use of a server and communication via a network interface (paragraph 0138) however does not teach the operation on the server. Leabman teaches the known use of a server to execute the functions of the computer module operation (paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to try the known use of a server for implementing the collecting and computation engine for the distance to user tool for benefit of reducing the complexity of the local computer and processor.
With respect to claim 8 Park as modified by Leabman teaches the sever may implement memory in the operation of the system however does not detail the location the protocols for risk for different user is stored. It is well known to store repositories of information on servers of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Park and Leabman to store the specialized protocols on a server for the benefit of allowing the user to customize the system for various rooms or venues.
With respect to claim 9, 15 and 20 Park as modified by Leabman teaches the sever may implement memory in the operation of the system however does not detail the location the protocols for risk for different user is stored. Leabman further teaches the use of user profiles (paragraph 0436). It is well known to store repositories of information on servers of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Leabman to store the profiles on the server for the benefit reducing the likelihood of loss of information.
With respect to claim 10 Park as modified by Leabman teaches the sever may implement memory in the operation of the system however does not detail the nature of the instructions stored therein. It is well known to instructions on a server rather than in local memory of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to store instructions on a server for increasing power the predictable result of customizing the required power levels of the needs of a particular installation.
Claims 3, 12 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman in view of Pan et al. (US 20200335999).
With respect to claims 3, 12 and 17 Sherman teaches a network interface (see 111) to communicate with devices that provide data (paragraph 0049) to the distance-to-user tool to determine the distance between the user and the wireless charging station. Sherman does not describe the devices interfaced as IoT devices. Pan for example teaches using Bluetooth unit as part of an interconnected terminal which provides data to determine distance (paragraph 0095-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sherman to try using IoT device for the benefit of quickly identify the location of the user.
Claims 3, 12 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Pan et al. (US 20200335999).
With respect to claims 3, 12 and 17 Park teaches a network interface (see 340) to communicate with devices that provide data (paragraph 0075) to the distance-to-user tool to determine the distance between the user and the wireless charging station. Park does not describe the devices interfaced as IoT devices. Pan for example teaches using Bluetooth unit as part of an interconnected terminal which provides data to determine distance (paragraph 0095-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Park to try using IoT device for the benefit of quickly identify the location of the user.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Leabman (US 20180048178).
With respect to claim 5-6 Park teaches the assigning different strengths to different types of portions of the body based on a risk distance however does not detail the differing categories. Leabman teaches the known use of different risk distances for the types of users (paragraph 0432). Leabman teaches the establishing specialized protocols for children and pregnant women for preventing harmful exposure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the types of users of Park to include the protocols for particular rooms or venues for the benefit of reducing exposure and increasing safety to the user types.
Claims 5-10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman in view of Leabman (US 20180048178).
With respect to claim 5-6 Sherman teaches the know use of a imaging three-dimensional map of venue (paragraph 0051-53) and further image analysis for determining position of humans (paragraph 0056), in a risk distance however does not teach different risk distances. Leabman teaches the known use of different risk distances for the types of users (paragraph 0432). Leabman teaches the establishing specialized protocols for children for preventing harmful exposure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the 3D mapping of the room and image-analysis of Sherman to include the protocols for particular rooms or venues for the benefit of reducing exposure and increasing safety to the user.
With respect to claim 7 Sherman teaches the known use of a controller and communication via a network interface however does not teach the interface of a server. Leabman teaches the known use of a server to execute the functions of the computer module operation (paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sherman to try the known use of a server for implementing the collecting and computation engine for the distance to user tool for benefit of reducing the complexity of the local computer and processor.
With respect to claim 8 Sherman as modified by Leabman teaches the sever may implement memory in the operation of the system however does not detail the location the protocols for risk for different user is stored. It is well known to store repositories of information on servers of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Leabman to store the specialized protocols on a server for the benefit of allowing the user to customize the system for various rooms or venues.
With respect to claim 9, 15 and 20 Sherman as modified by Leabman teaches the sever may implement memory in the operation of the system however does not detail the location the protocols for risk for different user is stored. Leabman further teaches the use of user profiles (paragraph 0436). It is well known to store repositories of information on servers of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Leabman to store the profiles on the server for the benefit reducing the likelihood of loss of information.
With respect to claim 10 Sherman as modified by Leabman teaches the sever may implement memory in the operation of the system however does not detail the nature of the instructions stored therein. It is well known to instructions on a server rather than in local memory of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Sherman to store instructions on a server for increasing power the predictable result of customizing the required power levels of the needs of a particular installation.
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 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
Prosecution Insights