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 .
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) 1, 3-5, 8-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2019/0181682), Agostinelli et al. (9,923,382), and Huang et al. (2014/0344601).
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 15, Kim teaches (Fig. 5) an electronic device and method, comprising:
a battery (CRECT);
a resonance circuit (22 and 3) including a coil, the resonance circuit configured to wirelessly receive power ([0045]);
a rectification circuit (4) including a plurality of transistors (first thru fourth switches, M1-M4) constituting a full bridge circuit, the rectification circuit configured to rectify AC power provided from the resonance circuit into DC power ([0047]); and
a control circuit (41, 51, 52, 61-63), wherein the control circuit is configured to:
perform impedance matching at least by controlling a bias voltage of at least one of the plurality of transistors ([0053]; based on power received from the external device to achieve maximum efficiency and output power, [0043]).
Kim fails to explicitly teach the resonance circuit (inside 3) including a capacitor, and the control circuit identifying a voltage and current of the AC power received and a difference between the phases of the voltage and current to perform control of the rectification circuit. Agostinelli teaches a similar electronic device and method (Fig. 1) to that of Kim. Agostinelli teaches an electronic device (100) comprising a resonance circuit (141), a rectifier (120), and a control circuit (110) including a processor to execute the claimed functions. Agostinelli teaches the resonance circuit including a coil (142) and a capacitor (144, 146). Agostinelli also teaches the control circuit configured to identify a difference between the phase of voltage and the phase of current of the AC power provided from the resonance circuit as the power is wirelessly received from an external device; and control the transistors (122, 124, 126, 128) of the rectification circuit in accordance with the difference between the phase of voltage and the phase of current meeting a designated condition (Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 42; the designated condition being when maximum efficiency and/or output power is not being achieved based on the phase difference), wherein the designated condition includes that the difference between the phase of the voltage and the phase of the current of the AC power exceeds a threshold magnitude (The “threshold magnitude” would be the smallest magnitude of phase difference detected that would cause determination by the control circuit that maximum efficiency is not being achieved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a capacitor included in Kim’s resonance circuit (inside 3), and identifying the phase difference between voltage and current as the basis for controlling the transistors of Kim’s rectification circuit, since Kim is silent as to what is included inside their matching element (3) and capacitors are known in the art to be a part of a resonance/matching circuit, and since both Kim and Agostinelli teach controlling the transistors in the rectification circuit based on power received at the power receiving device and it would involve a simple substitution of one set of received power parameters for another to perform the same function of controlling the transistors of the rectification circuit to maximize efficiency and output power to the electronic device’s output device/load.
Kim and Agostinelli fail to explicitly teach the claimed circuit configuration of the rectifier, wherein each switch comprising plural transistors in series or parallel. Huang teaches (Fig. 3) a similar rectifier (3) constituting a full bridge circuit, wherein each switch comprises transistors (31/35, 32/36, 33/37, 34/38) connected in series or parallel. Huang also teaches a control circuit (39) configured to perform impedance modulation, while a rectification operation is performed, by adjusting a number of transistors that are remained in turn-off state ([0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a plurality of transistors in parallel (as shown in Huang) into Kim’s rectifier for each of their switches, since it involves a mere simple substitution of one rectifier circuit configuration for another to perform the same function of impedance modulation to accomplish the same goals, as described in the Kim/Agostinelli combination.
All of the prior art references teach a rectifier comprising a plurality of switches and the idea of controlling the off/on timing of each of the switches to perform impedance modulation. The main reference, Kim, and Agostinelli both teach the idea of modulating the impedance, based on the voltage and the current received at the input of the rectifier, to maximize efficiency and power output from the rectifier. These references fail to explicitly teach controlling the switches to increase the capacitance based on the phase of the current being in a lagging state with respect to the phase of the voltage, and to decrease the capacitance based on the phase of the current being in a leading state with respect to the phase of the voltage. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the switches to increase/decrease the capacitance of the switches in the claimed manner, since it is known in the art to increase/decrease the capacitance in the claimed manner to maximize efficiency and power output in this type of system.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kim teaches the control circuit configured to perform impedance matching by at least controlling the bias voltage of the at least one of the plurality of transistors based on controlling gate voltages applied to the plurality of transistors included in the plurality of switches. ([0053])
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Agostinelli teach the control circuit configured to:
control the bias voltage of the at least one of the plurality of transistors based on the difference between the phases of the voltage and current meeting a designated condition (when maximum efficiency and/or output power is not being achieved); and
maintain the bias voltage of the at least one of the plurality of transistors based on the difference between the phases of the voltage and current failing to meet the designated condition (maintain the states of the transistors when maximum efficiency and/or output power is being achieved).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches turning off at least one of the plurality of transistors based on controlling the gate voltages, but fails to explicitly teach controlling the other transistors as claimed. Agostinelli teaches controlling the other transistors to be turned off and/or turned on to rectify the AC power into DC power, with the at least one transistor turned off (Col. 3, lines 52-63; Col. 4, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Agostinelli’s method of controlling the transistors to rectify the AC power into DC power, since Kim was silent as to explicitly how the transistors are controlled and Agostinelli teaches a known method of controlling the switches to perform the same function of rectifying AC power into DC power that is known in the art.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kim and Agostinelli teach the control circuit configured to, based on the difference between the phases of voltage and current meeting the designated condition, control the plurality of switches to perform impedance matching (by increasing/decreasing the bias voltage) to maximize efficiency and/or output power ([0043], [0053] of Kim). Kim and Agostinelli fail to explicitly teach increasing/decreasing the bias voltage based on the claimed lagging/leading relationship between the phase of current and the phase of voltage, however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the plurality of switches in the claimed manner since that would perform the desired function of maximizing efficiency and/or output power.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Kim and Agostinelli teach these limitations as described above. Agostinelli teaches identifying the difference between the phase of the voltage and the phase of the current (Col. 4, lines 15-32). Kim teaches identifying a degree of adjustment of a conduction angle of at least one transistor based on the identified difference (causing the device to not operate at maximum efficiency); changing a conduction angle of at least one transistor based on the bias voltage being controlled; and adjusting the bias voltage of at least one transistor by a magnitude corresponding to the degree of adjustment based on identifying the degree of adjust of the conduction angle ([0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Agostinelli teaches the designated condition being when maximum efficiency and/or output power is not being achieved based on the difference between the phase of the voltage and the phase of the current of the AC power (Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 42). The “threshold magnitude” in Agostinelli’s invention would be the smallest magnitude of phase difference detected that would cause determination by the control circuit that maximum efficiency is not being achieved. The designated number of times would be 0.
Regarding claim 17, Agostinelli teaches the designated condition being when maximum efficiency and/or output power is not being achieved based on the difference between the phase of the voltage and the phase of the current of the AC power (Col. 3, line 60 – Col. 4, line 42). The “threshold magnitude” in Agostinelli’s invention would be the smallest magnitude of phase difference detected that would cause determination by the control circuit that maximum efficiency is not being achieved. The designated number of times would be 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the independent claims simply involve adding dependent claims 6 and 7 into each of the independent claims. These claims were previously rejected using the same prior art references as in the current Office Action.
Based on the Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments, the Examiner feels that the Applicant is arguing the prior art references individually and/or may not fully understand the Examiner’s rejection. The main reference, Kim, teaches a similar electronic device and method as the claimed invention. Kim teaches the same elements and the same rectifier impedance modulation to maximize efficiency and power output as the claimed invention. The modifications made to Kim by Agostinelli is simply to add a capacitor to Kim’s resonance circuit, and detecting the phase of the current and voltage and using that information to modulate the impedance of the rectifier to maximize efficiency and power output.
The only teaching in the last prior art reference, Huang, used in the modification to Kim’s invention is substituting plural parallel switches into Kim’s rectifier for each of Kim’s rectifier switches. The modified invention will still perform the same functions described in Kim’s invention (i.e. impedance modulation via controlling the on/off of the rectifier’s switches to maximize efficiency and power output). The Kim/Agostinelli/Huang combination results in Kim’s rectifier having plural parallel/series switches (as described in Huang) and them being controlled (as described in Kim) and based on the sensed phase data of the current and voltage (as described in Agostinelli) to maximize efficiency and power output from the rectifier (as described in both Kim and Agostinelli).
The fact that Kim and Agostinelli don’t describe the claimed circuit configuration of the rectifier is moot, since Huang teaches that circuit configuration and that configuration is substituted into Kim’s invention for their rectifier switch configuration. Subsequently, Kim will control Huang’s rectifier switch configuration in the manner described in Kim’s invention (i.e. controlling on/off of the switches for impedance modulation) to maximize efficiency and power output.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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).
DMP
11/11/2025
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836