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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The IDSes filed 6/5/23 and 12/8/23 have both been considered and placed of record. The initialed copies are attached herewith. Drawings The drawings are objected to because figure 2 lacks reference numbers for items FO, RX and WCT. Figure 5a lacks a reference number for FO and a descriptive label for box 505. Figure 6a lacks a reference number for FO and a descriptive label for box 605. It is unclear what the purpose of an empty rectangular box in figure 8 . Figure 9 lacks a descriptive label for box 770. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allow a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claims 2, 3, 6, 13 and 17 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. Re claim 2 , the limitations “ the voltage at a second terminal” lack proper antecedent basis. It should be “ a voltage at a second terminal…” Re claim 3, the term “measuring a decay of the voltage at the second terminal of the transmitter inducto r comprising… ” should be rephrased as “measuring a decay of a voltage at a second terminal of the transmitter inductor comprising . ..” for consistency because what between “measuring” and “comprising” is considered to be the descriptive function of “measuring.” It should stay same. Re claim 6, the claim is indefinite for depending on indefinite claim s . Re claim 13, the limitations “ the second resistive divider,” “ the second coupling capacitor” and “ the second coupling resistor” all lack proper antecedent basis. Re claim 17, the limitation “ the supply rail” lacks proper antecedent basis . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 , 2, 4, 5 , 10, 11 , 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muratov et al. (US 2018/0241257) in view of Chinese document CN210469153U . Re claim s 1 and 14 , Muratov discloses a controller for a wireless charging transmitter circuit having a full-bridge inverter ( fig 6C ) having first and second full-bridge output nodes, a resonance circuit 6 comprising , inter alia , a series arrangement of a transmitter inductor and a first capacitor, and a second capacitor in parallel with the series arrangement, the wireless charging transmitter circuit further including a PI-filter comprising the second capacitor and first and second filter inductors coupled between first and second terminals of the second capacitor and the first and second full- bridge output nodes respectively ; wherein the controller is operable to measure a Q-factor of the resonant circuit by ( para 7 4: measure temporal characteristic by the matching network 6 and/or transmit coil 10 may be made to detect how quickly the resonance change and para 76: the quality factor Q of the wireless transmit coil maybe determined based on the temporal characteristic ) : controlling the full-bridge inverter to connect an input voltage supply to the PI-filter to supply an excitation pulse to the resonant circuit ( para 73: step S2 the resonance between the matching network and the transmit coil is allowed to decay ) ; controlling the full-bridge inverter to disconnect the input voltage supply and initiate a resonance in the resonant circuit ( para 73: energy transfer into matching network and transmit coil may be inhibiting in step S2 so that the matching network and transmit coil ma resonate freely ) ; controlling a switch in the full-bridge inverter to provide an reference ground to a first terminal of the transmitter inductor ( para 73: the output voltage may be held constant such as ground by turning on the appropriate transistor ) ; and measuring a decay of a voltage in the resonance circuit ( para 74: S3, temporal characteristic of the resonance decay may be measured ) . The reference does not disclose a PI filter. It is a common knowledge in the art to have included a PI circuit to reduce ac ripples in dc power supply. An example can be found in Chinese document ( fig 2; PI circuit 220 ) where the PI circuit is controlling the harmonic filtering of the controller 300. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a PI filter as exemplified in the Chinese document into the controller of Muratov to ensure the wireless power transfer does not have any ac ripples. Method steps of claim 14 performed by structural of claim 1. Re claim s 2 , 4 and 5 , Muratov does not disclose the measuring of the decay at the second terminal of the transmitter inductor (claim 2) or between two nodes of the resonant circuit (claim 4) being two terminals of the transmitter inductor (claim 5). It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have measured the decay of the resonant circuit at the terminal of the inductor or between the two nodes of the resonant circuit being two terminals of the transmitter inductor to ensure the speed of decay is detected to indicate whether a foreign object is present. Re claim 10, Muratov further disclose s the full-bridge inverter having two output nodes (fig 4). Re claim 11, Muratov further discloses the full-bridge inverter having MOSFETs and packaged with the controller (figs 4, 6a-c and 7a-c). Re claim 16, Muratov further discloses determining the current of the transmitter inductor (an inherent feature because current and voltage exists in circuit components when circuit is ‘live.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6-9, 12, 13, 15 and 17-20 are 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 AND overcoming the 112 rejections. The art made of record fails to disclose or suggest the specific claimed circuit components arranged in the claimed circuit design. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examine r can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00 pm. The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and h e can be reached at 571. 270.7166 . The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000. /EDWARD TSO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087