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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Examiner submits that proper correction needs to be made to the new matter issues before a full proper examination can be done on claims 5-12. Due to the new matter issue for claims 5-12, regarding “power receiver comprising a communicator/controller equipped with a near field communication (NFC) reader, wherein the wireless power receiver is configured for: start NFC scan” and per MPEP 2173.06:
where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed subject matter, “power receiver comprising a communicator/controller equipped with a near field communication (NFC) reader, wherein the wireless power receiver is configured for: start NFC scan,” is not supported in the drawings and the written description of the specification. As indicated in Paragraphs 0090 and 00158 of the filed specification below, there is no mention of a reader unit being part of the claimed “power receiver” of claims 1 and 9, rather oppositely it is part of the power transmitter shown in Paragraph 0090 below. Also, the specification is silent on the power receiver actively performing “NFC scanning” as claimed. Rather, Paragraph 00158 discloses the power receiver performing NFC detection, which is completely different than the claimed “NFC scanning.” The Examiner submits that the claimed “NFC scanning” is an active operation compared to the passive operation of NFC detection of Paragraph 00158.
The Examiner submits that Applicant did not have possession of the claimed concept of both “NFC scanning” and the “power receiver equipped with a NFC reader” at the time of filing.
[0090] Although not shown in the figure, a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)/Near Field Communication (NFC) reader unit (or an NFC function unit) for detecting the RFID/NFC cards may be further mounted on a power transmitter.
[00158] In the above-described embodiment, the power receiver has been mainly described as an entity performing the RFID/NFC detection operation, but the present invention is not limited thereto, and the power transmitter may also function as an entity performing the RFID/NFC detection operation.
Correction is required, or a discussion with the Examiner for suggestions on making the subject matter more in alignment with the disclosure is another option.
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 of this title, 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 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0002038) in view of Iwasaki (US 2016/0352155).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses a wireless power transmitter, comprising: a converter related to transferring wireless power to a wireless power receiver; and a communicator/controller related to controlling the wireless power (Figure 2A; Paragraphs 0063-0089), wherein the wireless power transmitter is configured to: receive, from the wireless power receiver, an End Power Transfer (EPT) packet, wherein the EPT packet instructs the wireless power transmitter to remove a power signal; remove the power signal based on the EPT packet (Figures 19-20; Paragraph 0321). Examiner submits this is equivalent to a message transmitted by the electronic device 200, for instance, an end power transfer packet 5600 as illustrated in FIG. 20. The packet 5600 may include a header 5620 for notifying that it is an end power transfer packet and a message 5630 including an end power transfer code indicating the cause of the suspension.
Lee does not disclose restart ping phase after a predefined duration of time; and restart the ping phase after the predefined duration of the time. However, Iwasaki discloses restart ping phase after a predefined duration of time; and restart the ping phase after the predefined duration of the time (Paragraph 0103; Figures 2-3). Examiner submits this is equivalent to how after a predetermined time period elapses, the power transmission apparatus 200 may restart the operation from the analog ping phase or otherwise from the digital ping phase. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the power transmission apparatus and power transfer methodology of Lee so that the EPT packet of Lee incorporates restarting ping phase after a predefined duration of time, in order to conserve transmission power and since both Lee and Iwasaki identically disclose an End Power Transfer (EPT) packet being sent to the transmission apparatus so that the transmission power is suspended, disclosed in Paragraphs 0321 of Lee and Paragraph 0103 Iwasaki.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the EPT packet includes a code of a reason for requesting to stop a power transfer (Paragraph 0321). The packet 5600 may include a header 5620 for notifying that it is an end power transfer packet and a message 5630 including an end power transfer code indicating the cause of the suspension. The end power transfer code may indicate any one of charge complete, internal fault, over temperature, over voltage, over current, battery failure, reconfigure, no response, and unknown error.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 339 whose telephone number is (571)272-9747. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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.
/ANKUR JAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights