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
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
[Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation]
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov (U.S. Patent 9,928,672) in view of Van Wageningen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0044383).
Regarding claim 1, Jablokov discloses a method comprising:
determining that an appliance system operator is present at a (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15)
to promote safe operation (Abstract, “safety shutoff capabilities”) of the resonant induction appliance system, based on determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system (Jablokov, column 1 lines 50 – 60, “The method also includes monitoring an operating state of the appliance and altering the operating state of the appliance depending on the proximity of the authorized user.”) , enabling the operational mode of the (column 13, lines 51-55),
determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the (column 2 lines 9-25, “altering the operating state of the appliance comprises shutting off the appliance when the proximity of the authorized user is beyond a pre-established zone” indicates monitoring and determining when the operator is no longer present at the appliance system) based on at least one metric collected using at least one device that is also not present at the resonant induction appliance system (Jablokov, column 2 lines 39-56, monitoring the user with external sensors and the transfer of their data);
accessing a stored trigger to determine that the trigger indicates that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system should be disabled based at least in part on the appliance system operator not being present at the resonant induction appliance system (Jablokov, column 14 line 53 – column 15 line 5, when not in proximity, a shutdown process is triggered, starting with a time, and then a notification and ends in shutdown and further notification), wherein the trigger promotes safe operation of the resonant induction appliance system by preventing potentially unattended work by the wireless power receiver subsystem on the appliance task;
in response to determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system and that the trigger indicates that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system should be disabled based at least in part on the appliance system operator not being present at the resonant induction appliance system:
disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system (Jablokov, column 3 lines 5-10, “the program portions further include instructions to shut off the appliance when the proximity of the authorized user is beyond a pre-established zone.”) to cause the wireless power transmitter to stop delivering enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem for the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform the potentially unattended work on the appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem stops the potentially unattended work on the appliance task (it would stop the power of this wireless power transfer); and
triggering a notification that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system has been disabled (Jablokov, column 15 lines 1-14; claim 9, “transmitting a notification to the user device that the appliance has been disconnected from the power source.”) “ to stop the potentially unattended work by the wireless power receiver subsystem on the appliance task.
However, Jablokov does not disclose wherein the appliance is “a resonant induction appliance system comprising a wireless power receiver subsystem removably in a wireless power reception zone of a wireless power transmitter subsystem; wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem comprises a wireless power receiver; wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a wireless power transmitter; wherein, when the resonant induction appliance system is in an operational mode, the wireless power transmitter delivers enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform active work on an appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task”, nor all the associated and proper power transfers when in operation to make the device work and perform the task, nor shutting the power transfer when appropriate. Jablokov does teach that the appliance may have “induction” power, but not the particular type of appliance with all the transmitters and receivers and wireless power transfer.
However, Van Wageningen discloses, in his heating appliances (Van Wageningen, ¶0001), “a resonant (¶103, resonant) induction appliance system comprising a wireless power receiver subsystem removably in a wireless power reception zone of a wireless power transmitter subsystem (¶107, cooking zone, Fig. 3, ¶101); wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem comprises a wireless power receiver (electromagnetic load¶ ¶0033,0101, “”power may be received by the power transfer electromagnetic signal causing Eddy currents in a conductive element of the electromagnetic load. The electromagnetic load may in many embodiments be a heating plate, e.g. of a pan, kettle, pot or similar kitchen heating appliance.”, “The system includes an electromagnetic load in the form of a heating pan. The electromagnetic load can be represented by a receiver coil 307 and a load R_Sole 309 (representing the loading of the electromagnetic load and specifically the Eddy current losses in heating element).”); wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a wireless power transmitter (¶101, elements 303,305, “transmitter coil”); wherein, when the resonant induction appliance system is in an operational mode (¶0022, when in power transfer mode, power is transferred), the wireless power transmitter delivers enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform active work on an appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task (¶0012, induction may be used for inductively heated cooking stoves).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov with the teachings of Van Wageningen, to control a wireless power transfer induction heating system with the safety shut-off system, as Jablokov teaches that its invention works with “induction” appliances (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15) and Van Wageningen teaches systems and signals to control the power transfer (Van Wageningen, ¶¶0037,0042, 0048, ¶0050) “to initialize a power transfer phase in response to… signal”), in order to ensure safety to an induction heating unit, and so that power is not being transferred when an operator or user is not present for safety reasons, and to ensure that, through induction heating, only devices intended to be receivers and properly heated are also only properly heated, as is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches comprising: the wireless power transmitter subsystem wirelessly receiving a particular encapsulated presence message from a mobile device of the appliance system operator; the wireless power transmitter subsystem decapsulating the particular presence message to determine that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system; wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises the wireless power transmitter subsystem failing to receive a later encapsulated presence message from the mobile device of the appliance system operator for a period of time after the particular encapsulated presence message was received (Jablokov, column 3, lines 11-16; disabling it when no authorized radio-enabled component is in range either immediately or for a predetermined period of time”; messages are exchanged, but if none are in range to be received, then the device takes action).
Regarding claim 10, Jablokov discloses a (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15) wireless power transmitter subsystem comprising:
one or more processors (Jablokov, 119);
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (Jablokov, Memory, 116, 117; column 6 lines 16-17, “operating systems conventionally may be stored in memory), the instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system comprising the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem and the wireless power receiver subsystem so that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem can be enabled to cause the wireless power transmitter to deliver enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform the active work on the appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes the received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task (Jablokov, column 2 lines 9-25, “altering the operating state of the appliance comprises shutting off the appliance when the proximity of the authorized user is beyond a pre-established zone” indicates monitoring and determining when the operator is no longer present at the appliance system; column 2 lines 39-56, monitoring the user with external sensors and the transfer of their data);
the one or more processors operatively connected to one or more wireless communication devices to receive at least one metric collected using at least one device that is not present at the resonant induction appliance system, the at least one metric indicating that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system;
the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media further storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause:
accessing a stored trigger to determine that the trigger indicates that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system should be disabled based at least in part on the appliance system operator not being present at the resonant induction appliance system, wherein the trigger promotes safe operation of the resonant induction appliance system by preventing potentially unattended work by the wireless power receiver subsystem on the appliance task (column 11 line 64 – column 12 line 25, trigger event promotes safety);
in response to determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system and that the trigger indicates that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system should be disabled based at least in part on the appliance system operator not being present at the resonant induction appliance system, disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system to cause the wireless power transmitter stopping delivery of enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem for the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform the potentially unattended work on the appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem stops the potentially unattended work on the appliance task (Jablokov, column 3 lines 5-10, “the program portions further include instructions to shut off the appliance when the proximity of the authorized user is beyond a pre-established zone.”); and
triggering a notification that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system has been disabled to stop the potentially unattended work by the wireless power receiver subsystem on the appliance task (Jablokov, column 15 lines 1-14; claim 9, “transmitting a notification to the user device that the appliance has been disconnected from the power source.”).
Jablokov does not specifically disclose a wireless power transmitter comprising a coil coupled with a series capacitor in a resonant chamber, the resonant chamber operatively connected to a power inverter;
the wireless power transmitter positioned to provide wireless power to a wireless power reception zone where a wireless power receiver subsystem can be removably placed; wherein, when the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem is placed in an operational mode, the wireless power transmitter delivers enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform active work on an appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task.
Jablokov generally does disclose that the appliance may be an induction powered appliance (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15) (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15).
However, Van Wageningen discloses a wireless power transmitter (¶101, elements 303,305, “transmitter coil; ¶107, cooking zone, Fig. 3) comprising a coil coupled with a series capacitor in a resonant chamber (¶103, resonant), the resonant chamber operatively connected to a power inverter (elements 107, 303);
the wireless power transmitter positioned to provide wireless power to a wireless power reception zone where a wireless power receiver subsystem (can be removably placed; wherein, when the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem is placed in an operational mode, the wireless power transmitter delivers enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem (electromagnetic load¶ ¶0033,0101, “”power may be received by the power transfer electromagnetic signal causing Eddy currents in a conductive element of the electromagnetic load. The electromagnetic load may in many embodiments be a heating plate, e.g. of a pan, kettle, pot or similar kitchen heating appliance.”, “The system includes an electromagnetic load in the form of a heating pan. The electromagnetic load can be represented by a receiver coil 307 and a load R_Sole 309 (representing the loading of the electromagnetic load and specifically the Eddy current losses in heating element).”) to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform active work on an appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task (¶¶0012; 0022, when in power transfer mode, power is transferred),.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov with the teachings of Van Wageningen, to control a wireless power transfer induction heating system with the safety shut-off system, as Jablokov teaches that its invention works with “induction” appliances (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15) and Van Wageningen teaches systems and signals to control the power transfer (Van Wageningen, ¶¶0037,0042, 0048, ¶0050) “to initialize a power transfer phase in response to… signal”), in order to ensure safety to an induction heating unit, and so that power is not being transferred when an operator or user is not present for safety reasons, and to ensure that, through induction heating, only devices intended to be receivers and properly heated are also only properly heated, as is conventional in the
Regarding claim 17, Jablokov discloses one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing instructions (Jablokov, Memory, 116, 117; column 6 lines 16-17, “operating systems conventionally may be stored in memory), which, when executed by one or more processors (119), cause:
determining that an appliance system operator is present at a (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15)
to promote safe operation (Abstract, “safety shutoff capabilities”) of the resonant induction appliance system, based on determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system (Jablokov, column 1 lines 50 – 60, “The method also includes monitoring an operating state of the appliance and altering the operating state of the appliance depending on the proximity of the authorized user.”)
enabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system to cause the wireless power transmitter to deliver enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform the active work on the appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes the received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task(column 13, lines 51-55);
determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system based on at least one metric collected using at least one device that is also not present at the resonant induction appliance system (column 11 line 7-17);
accessing a stored trigger to determine that the trigger indicates that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system should be disabled based at least in part on the appliance system operator not being present at the resonant induction appliance system, wherein the trigger promotes safe operation of the resonant induction appliance system by preventing potentially unattended work by the wireless power receiver subsystem on the appliance task (column 11 line 64 – column 12 line 25, trigger event promotes safety) ;
in response to determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system and that the trigger indicates that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system should be disabled based at least in part on the appliance system operator not being present at the resonant induction appliance system:
disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system (Jablokov, column 3 lines 5-10, “the program portions further include instructions to shut off the appliance when the proximity of the authorized user is beyond a pre-established zone.”) to cause
the wireless power transmitter to stop delivering enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem for the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform the potentially unattended work on the appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem stops the potentially unattended work on the appliance task (it would stop the power of this wireless power transfer); and
triggering a notification that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system has been disabled to stop the potentially unattended work by the wireless power receiver subsystem on the appliance task (Jablokov, column 15 lines 1-14; claim 9, “transmitting a notification to the user device that the appliance has been disconnected from the power source.”).
However, Jablokov does not disclose wherein the appliance is “a resonant induction appliance system comprising a wireless power receiver subsystem removably in a wireless power reception zone of a wireless power transmitter subsystem; wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem comprises a wireless power receiver; wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a wireless power transmitter; wherein, when the resonant induction appliance system is in an operational mode, the wireless power transmitter delivers enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform active work on an appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task”, nor all the associated and proper power transfers when in operation to make the device work and perform the task, nor shutting the power transfer when appropriate. Jablokov does teach that the appliance may have “induction” power, but not the particular type of appliance with all the transmitters and receivers and wireless power transfer.
However, Van Wageningen discloses, in his heating appliances (Van Wageningen, ¶0001), “a resonant (¶103, resonant) induction appliance system comprising a wireless power receiver subsystem removably in a wireless power reception zone of a wireless power transmitter subsystem (¶107, cooking zone, Fig. 3, ¶101); wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem comprises a wireless power receiver (electromagnetic load¶ ¶0033,0101, “”power may be received by the power transfer electromagnetic signal causing Eddy currents in a conductive element of the electromagnetic load. The electromagnetic load may in many embodiments be a heating plate, e.g. of a pan, kettle, pot or similar kitchen heating appliance.”, “The system includes an electromagnetic load in the form of a heating pan. The electromagnetic load can be represented by a receiver coil 307 and a load R_Sole 309 (representing the loading of the electromagnetic load and specifically the Eddy current losses in heating element).”); wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a wireless power transmitter (¶101, elements 303,305, “transmitter coil”); wherein, when the resonant induction appliance system is in an operational mode (¶0022, when in power transfer mode, power is transferred), the wireless power transmitter delivers enough wireless power to the wireless power receiver subsystem to allow the wireless power receiver subsystem to perform active work on an appliance task, such that the wireless power receiver subsystem consumes received power from the wireless power transmitter to perform the active work on the appliance task (¶0012, induction may be used for inductively heated cooking stoves).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov with the teachings of Van Wageningen, to control a wireless power transfer induction heating system with the safety shut-off system, as Jablokov teaches that its invention works with “induction” appliances (Jablokov, column 9 lines 25-41, induction powered appliance, column 5 line 15) and Van Wageningen teaches systems and signals to control the power transfer (Van Wageningen, ¶¶0037,0042, 0048, ¶0050) “to initialize a power transfer phase in response to… signal”), in order to ensure safety to an induction heating unit, and so that power is not being transferred when an operator or user is not present for safety reasons, and to ensure that, through induction heating, only devices intended to be receivers and properly heated are also only properly heated, as is conventional in the art.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov (U.S. Patent 9,928,672) in view of Van Wageningen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 044383), and further in view of Egenter (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/ 0180796).
Regarding claim 2, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises detecting that the wireless power receiver subsystem has been newly placed in the wireless power reception zone of the wireless power transmitter subsystem. However, Egenter, in his control of heating elements, has the placement of the pot (the receiver of the power of induction heating,) recognized as an indicator that the user is present (Egenter, ¶0019, “a pot recognition sensor or a weight sensor on a hob zone of a hob that is able to record an operation or generally an action by the operator on the cooking appliance. Such an action on the cooking appliance then also naturally necessarily means that the operator is present at the cooking appliance or is standing directly in front of it.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to ensure that a user is present at a heating element or cooking appliance, and to have a physical indication that a user is present with the electronic appliance to start the power transfer, not merely that a cell phone is present or some other device in the proper area.
Regarding claim 3, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem converts at least some of the received power into a current and wherein the current is consumed by the electric appliance to perform the active work on the appliance task; (the eddy currents in Van Wageningen); but it does not teach wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem further comprises an electric appliance having a physical interface; and wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises detecting a physical interaction from the appliance system operator with the physical interface of the electric appliance. However, naturally, if the physical switches are being operated, the system can assume that the operator is at the cooking appliance monitoring the operation, such as Egenter teaches (Egenter, ¶¶0006, 0007; ¶0044, touch switches or as a touch display”; if you are close then it can be assumed you are monitoring). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to have a device comprise a physical detection of a user on an interface, in order to know that the user/operator is close and monitoring the situation, to make sure that there is no overheating or accident, during using the devices or that is in operation without supervision.
Regarding claim 4, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a physical interface, wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem converts at least some of the received power into heat, wherein the heat causes one or more surfaces of the wireless power receiver subsystem to increase in temperature enough to perform the active work on the appliance task, and wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises detecting a physical interaction from the appliance system operator with the physical interface of the wireless power transmitter subsystem. However, Egenter teaches an interface that recognizes touch, such as toa touch display or a touch switches and Egenter, who is worried about proximity of the user notices that within a certain range, it is assumed that the user is present (Egenter, ¶¶0006, 0007; ¶0044, touch switches or as a touch display”; if you are close then it can be assumed you are monitoring). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to have a device comprise a physical detection of a user on an interface, in order to know that the user/operator is close and monitoring the situation, to make sure that there is no overheating or accident, during using the devices or that is in operation without supervision.
Regarding claim 11, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a system comprising the wireless power receiver subsystem that is removably placed in the wireless power reception zone (Van Wageningen, pan 307), wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem comprises a receiver coil to convert at least some of the wireless power from the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem into a current (eddy currents form Van Wageningen, as above); but does not further teach wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem further comprises an electric appliance having a physical interface to cause the electric appliance to use the current to perform the active work on the appliance task; and wherein the one or more instructions that cause said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system are implemented at least in part by detecting a physical interaction from the appliance system operator with the physical interface of the electric appliance.
However, naturally, if the physical switches are being operated, the system can assume that the operator is at the cooking appliance monitoring the operation, such as Egenter teaches (Egenter, ¶¶0006, 0007; ¶0044, touch switches or as a touch display”; if you are close then it can be assumed you are monitoring). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to have a device comprise a physical detection of a user on an interface, in order to know that the user/operator is close and monitoring the situation, to make sure that there is no overheating or accident, during using the devices or that is in operation without supervision.
Regarding claim 12, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach wherein the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a physical interface, and wherein the one or more instructions that cause said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system are implemented at least in part by detecting a physical interaction from the appliance system operator with the physical interface of the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem, and wherein the physical interaction with the physical interface is operable to cause one or more surfaces of the wireless power receiver subsystem to heat up by increasing in temperature enough to perform the active work on the appliance task. However, Egenter teaches a an interface that recognizes touch, such as toa touch display or a touch switches and Egenter, who is worried about proximity of the user notices that within a certain range, it is assumed that the user is present (Egenter, ¶¶0006, 0007; ¶0044, touch switches or as a touch display”; if you are close then it can be assumed you are monitoring). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to have a device comprise a physical detection of a user on an interface, in order to know that the user/operator is close and monitoring the situation, to make sure that there is no overheating or accident, during using the devices or that is in operation without supervision.
Regarding claim 18, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem converts at least some of the received power into a current (as is done in Van Wageningen), but does not further teach wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem further comprises an electric appliance having a physical interface; wherein the current is consumed by the electric appliance to perform the active work on the appliance task; and wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises detecting a physical interaction from the appliance system operator with the physical interface of the electric appliance. However, naturally, if the physical switches are being operated, the system can assume that the operator is at the cooking appliance monitoring the operation, such as Egenter teaches (Egenter, ¶¶0006, 0007; ¶0044, touch switches or as a touch display”; if you are close then it can be assumed you are monitoring). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to have a device comprise a physical detection of a user on an interface, in order to know that the user/operator is close and monitoring the situation, to make sure that there is no overheating or accident, during using the devices or that is in operation without supervision.
Regarding claim 19, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further teach wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem comprises a physical interface, wherein the wireless power receiver subsystem converts at least some of the received power into heat, wherein the heat causes one or more surfaces of the wireless power receiver subsystem to increase in temperature enough to perform the active work on the appliance task, and wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises detecting a physical interaction from the appliance system operator with the physical interface of the wireless power transmitter subsystem. However, Egenter teaches a an interface that recognizes touch, such as toa touch display or a touch switches and Egenter, who is worried about proximity of the user notices that within a certain range, it is assumed that the user is present (Egenter, ¶¶0006, 0007; ¶0044, touch switches or as a touch display”; if you are close then it can be assumed you are monitoring). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Egenter, to have a device comprise a physical detection of a user on an interface, the heating according to Van Wageningen, in order to know that the user/operator is close and monitoring the situation, to make sure that there is no overheating or accident, during using the devices or that is in operation without supervision.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov (U.S. Patent 9,928,672) in view of Van Wageningen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0044383) and further in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0314226) in light of GIS Geography (How GPS Receivers Work – Trilateration vs. Triangulation”; attached).
Regarding claim 5, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach comprising: determining a trilaterated position of a mobile device of the appliance system operator; wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises: comparing the trilaterated position to one or more stored positions relative to a location of the resonant induction appliance system; and accessing a stored policy to determine whether the trilaterated position is considered present at the resonant induction appliance system. However, Zhang teaches using GPS to determine the position of and presence of a user,, and GPS uses trilateration to pinpoint location (Zhang, ¶0027, “To ensure user not leaving home while the burner of cooking range is still on, a GPS positioning monitor may be included by the safety watcher that constantly measures position data of the cell phone.”; in light of GIS Geography, p. 1, “GPS receivers use Trilateration”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Zhang, to use a GPS system, a trilaterated position system to determine the presence of the user, in order to have a very accurate way of determining presence at any location and for any devices, and it does not take specific sensors, and GPS is ubiquitous.
Regarding claim 13 , Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media further storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause determining a trilaterated position of a mobile device of the appliance system operator; wherein the one or more instructions that cause said determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system are implemented at least in part by: comparing the trilaterated position to one or more stored positions relative to a location of the resonant induction appliance system; and accessing a stored policy to determine whether the trilaterated position is considered present at the resonant induction appliance system.
However, Zhang teaches using GPS to determine the position of and presence of a user,, and GPS uses trilateration to pinpoint location (Zhang, ¶0027, “To ensure user not leaving home while the burner of cooking range is still on, a GPS positioning monitor may be included by the safety watcher that constantly measures position data of the cell phone.”; in light of GIS Geography, p. 1, “GPS receivers use Trilateration”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Zhang, to use a GPS system, a trilaterated position system to determine the presence of the user, in order to have a very accurate way of determining presence at any location and for any devices, and it does not take specific sensors, and GPS is ubiquitous.
Regarding claim 20 , Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, but does not further teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: determining a trilaterated position of a mobile device of the appliance system operator; wherein said determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system comprises: comparing the trilaterated position to one or more stored positions relative to a location of the resonant induction appliance system; and accessing a stored policy to determine whether the trilaterated position is considered present at the resonant induction appliance system. However, Zhang teaches using GPS to determine the position of and presence of a user,, and GPS uses trilateration to pinpoint location (Zhang, ¶0027, “To ensure user not leaving home while the burner of cooking range is still on, a GPS positioning monitor may be included by the safety watcher that constantly measures position data of the cell phone.”; in light of GIS Geography, p. 1, “GPS receivers use Trilateration”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Zhang, to use a GPS system, a trilaterated position system to determine the presence of the user, in order to have a very accurate way of determining presence at any location and for any devices, and it does not take specific sensors, and GPS is ubiquitous.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov (U.S. Patent 9,928,672) in view of Van Wageningen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0044383) and further in view of Clothier (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0149736).
Regarding claim 7, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem supports a plurality of different candidate wireless power receiver subsystems, the method further comprising: the wireless power transmitter subsystem wirelessly receiving an encapsulated message from the wireless power receiver subsystem; the wireless power transmitter subsystem decapsulating the message to determine an identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem among the plurality of different candidate wireless power receiver subsystems; and wherein said accessing the trigger comprises looking up the trigger based at least in part on the identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem. However, Clothier teaches “wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem supports a plurality of different candidate wireless power receiver subsystems, the method further comprising: the wireless power transmitter subsystem wirelessly receiving an encapsulated message from the wireless power receiver subsystem; the wireless power transmitter subsystem decapsulating the message to determine an identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem among the plurality of different candidate wireless power receiver subsystems; and wherein said accessing the trigger comprises looking up the trigger based at least in part on the identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem (Clothier, ¶0052, information identifies “vessel type (.g. frying pan, sizzle pan, pot) and capabilities” “Until this information is received, no current is allowed to flow in the work coil 46, and thus no unintended heating can occur. If the hob 44 is provided with two RFID antennas 54A,54B, as is preferred, then the RFID tag 24 may be read by either the center RFID antenna 54A or the peripheral RFID antenna 54B. Once the vessel 28 has been detected, process and feedback information, described below in greater detail, is downloaded from the RFID tag 24 and processed by the microprocessor 48, as depicted in box 202. The aforementioned class-of-object code will inform the microprocessor 48 of or allow the microprocessor 48 to select an appropriate heating algorithm.” Which is the trigger). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Clothier, to be able to identify different receivers (i.e. appliances and/or pots and pans receiving the signal and heating up) in order to heat different appliances most efficiently based on their settings and materials, and therefore would know the type of heating process based on the appliance/pot put on the induction heater and what kind and how much power should be transferred.
Regarding claim 8, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen and Clothier teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, and further teaches a device comprising: determining that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system is associated with a particular operational mode of a plurality of different candidate operational modes of the wireless power receiver subsystem; wherein the trigger indicates that the particular operational mode of the wireless power receiver subsystem should be disabled when the appliance system operator is not present at the resonant induction appliance system after a grace period of time; determining that the grace period of time is not yet met, and, based on the grace period indicated by the trigger, postponing the disabling of the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system; determining that the grace period of time is met; wherein said disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system is based at least in part on determining that the grace period of time is met. (Jablokov, column 2 lines 25-29, shutting off after a pre-defined period of time” when the user is not in proximity, which is a “grace period” column 12, lines 56-67, show operational mode of appliance; and this may be altered.).
Regarding claim 9, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen and Clothier teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as above, and further teaches a device comprising: before the grace period of time is met and after said determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system, outputting, on a mobile device of the appliance system operator, a preliminary notification that indicates the resonant induction appliance system is potentially operating under unsafe conditions; wherein the preliminary notification comprises a user interface on the mobile device, wherein the user interface comprises at least one response option for the appliance system operator to indicate that the resonant induction appliance system is operating under safe conditions; wherein said disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system is performed after the appliance system operator fails to indicate, via the user interface, that the resonant induction appliance system is operating under safe conditions (all these steps are within the notification system as described in Jablokov column 14 lines 53-67, “If, however, the monitor and control module does not detect that the authorized radio-enabled component is back in range 708, the monitor and control module is adapted to monitor the status of the warning timer and the shutdown timer that were started at step 707. More particularly, if the monitor and control module determines that the warning timer has reached or exceeded the set limit 709, but that the pre-determined shutdown time has not been reached, then the monitor and control module may generate and transmit a push notification warning 713, e.g., to the user's smartphone via the cloud-based service. Advantageously, upon receipt of a notification warning message, it would be possible for the user to create an exception 714, for example, that would add additional warning time and/or shutdown time or that would reset the timers altogether.”).
Regarding claim 14, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen and Clothier teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach wherein the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem supports a plurality of different wireless power receiver subsystems, the one or more wireless communication devices further configured to wirelessly receive an encapsulated message from the wireless power receiver subsystem, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause decapsulating the message to determine an identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem among the plurality of different wireless power receiver subsystems; and wherein the one or more instructions that cause said accessing the trigger are implemented at least in part by looking up the trigger based at least in part on the identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem.
However, Clothier teaches “wherein the wireless power transmitter subsystem supports a plurality of different candidate wireless power receiver subsystems, the method further comprising: the wireless power transmitter subsystem wirelessly receiving an encapsulated message from the wireless power receiver subsystem; the wireless power transmitter subsystem decapsulating the message to determine an identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem among the plurality of different candidate wireless power receiver subsystems; and wherein said accessing the trigger comprises looking up the trigger based at least in part on the identity of the wireless power receiver subsystem (Clothier, ¶0052, information identifies “vessel type (.g. frying pan, sizzle pan, pot) and capabilities” “Until this information is received, no current is allowed to flow in the work coil 46, and thus no unintended heating can occur. If the hob 44 is provided with two RFID antennas 54A,54B, as is preferred, then the RFID tag 24 may be read by either the center RFID antenna 54A or the peripheral RFID antenna 54B. Once the vessel 28 has been detected, process and feedback information, described below in greater detail, is downloaded from the RFID tag 24 and processed by the microprocessor 48, as depicted in box 202. The aforementioned class-of-object code will inform the microprocessor 48 of or allow the microprocessor 48 to select an appropriate heating algorithm.” Which is the trigger). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen with the teachings of Clothier, to be able to identify different receivers (i.e. appliances and/or pots and pans receiving the signal and heating up) in order to heat different appliances most efficiently based on their settings and materials, and therefore would know the type of heating process based on the appliance/pot put on the induction heater and what kind and how much power should be transferred.
Regarding claim 15, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen and Clothier teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media further store instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause: determining that the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem is associated with a particular operational mode of a plurality of different candidate operational modes of the wireless power receiver subsystem; wherein the trigger indicates that the particular operational mode of the wireless power receiver subsystem should be disabled when the induction appliance system operator is not present at the resonant induction appliance system after a grace period of time; determining that the grace period of time is not yet met, and, based on the grace period indicated by the trigger, postponing said disabling of the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem; determining that the grace period of time is met; wherein said disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance wireless power transmitter subsystem is based at least in part on determining that the grace period of time is met. (Jablokov, column 2 lines 25-29, shutting off after a pre-defined period of time” when the user is not in proximity, which is a “grace period”; column 12, lines 56-67, show operational mode of appliance; and this may be altered.).
Regarding claim 16, Jablokov in view of Van Wageningen and Clothier teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, and further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media further store instructions which when executed by the one or more processors, cause: before the grace period of time is met and after determining that the appliance system operator is no longer present at the resonant induction appliance system, outputting, on a mobile device user interface of the appliance system operator, a preliminary notification that indicates the resonant induction appliance system is potentially operating under unsafe conditions; wherein said disabling the operational mode of the resonant induction appliance system is configured to be caused after the appliance system operator fails to indicate, via the mobile device user interface, that the resonant induction appliance system is operating under safe conditions (all these steps are within the notification system as described in Jablokov column 14 lines 53-67, “If, however, the monitor and control module does not detect that the authorized radio-enabled component is back in range 708, the monitor and control module is adapted to monitor the status of the warning timer and the shutdown timer that were started at step 707. More particularly, if the monitor and control module determines that the warning timer has reached or exceeded the set limit 709, but that the pre-determined shutdown time has not been reached, then the monitor and control module may generate and transmit a push notification warning 713, e.g., to the user's smartphone via the cloud-based service. Advantageously, upon receipt of a notification warning message, it would be possible for the user to create an exception 714, for example, that would add additional warning time and/or shutdown time or that would reset the timers altogether.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
