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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the term “average user” it is unclear the meets and bounds of the said limitation. 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. Claim s 1-2, 4, 11, 13, 14, 16 , 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" 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. With respect to claims 2, 13 and 18 Sherman teaches a distance detector (see imaging cameras, lasers, thermal images 131 paragraph 0051-52) to output data to the distance-to-user tool to determine the distance between the user and the wireless charging station. 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. Claim s 3, 12 and 1 7 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 1 7 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. Claim s 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 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 6 Leabman teaches assigned special protocols for pregnant women distinct form protocols for children (see paragraph 00432) With respect to claim 7 Sherman teaches the known use of a controller and communication via a network interface however does not teach the in ter face 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Fin whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5921 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rexford Barnie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL FIN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2836 /MICHAEL R. FIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836