DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits, in response to the claims received 1/8/2024. Claims 1-19,21 are pending for prosecution below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,5,9-11,14,18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petras et al, (Petras), (USNO.2015/0326069) in view of Ho et al, (Ho), (USNO.2009/0121675).
As for claim 1, Petras discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 a control method for wireless charging, the control method comprising: controlling a first power converter (via ref’s boost) at a secondary side (via ref’s receiver) to charge a chargeable load at a first set current; receiving a sensing signal (via the microcontroller power measurements) representing an output current of a second power converter (with ref’s variable power source transmission) at a primary side; and in response to the output current, controlling (ref’s adjusting and optimizing) the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current (par.[0029,0040-0044]).
Petras discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current
Ho discloses and shows in Fig. 7 output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current (par.[0046-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Petras by using output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current for advantages such as providing the ability to dynamically control the source (par.[0046]), as taught by Ho.
As for claim 2, Petras in combination with Ho discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 in response to the output current being below the threshold current, controlling the first power converter to continue
As for claims 5 and 14, Petras in combination with Ho discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 receiving the sensing signal representing the output current of the second power converter at the primary side comprises: receiving from a first current sensing device the sensing signal, wherein the first current sensing device is configured to sense a current in an output branch of the second power converter
As for claims 9 and 18, Petras in combination with Ho discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 a charging coil at the secondary side is electromagnetically coupled to a charging coil at the primary side in a loose manner
As for claim 10, Petras discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 a wireless charging apparatus, comprising: a charging coil for electromagnetically coupling to a primary-side charging coil at a secondary side (via ref’s receiver); a first power converter (via ref’s boost); and a control device for controlling (ref’s adjusting and optimizing) the first power converter, wherein the control device is configured to: control the first power converter to charge a chargeable load at a first set current; receive a sensing signal (via the microcontroller power measurements) representing an output current of a second power converter (with ref’s variable power source transmission) at a primary side; and in response to the output current, control the first power converter to charge a chargeable load at a first set current; (par.[0029,0040-0044]).
Petras discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current.
Ho discloses and shows in Fig. 7 output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current (par.[0046-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Petras by using output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current for advantages such as providing the ability to dynamically control the source (par.[0046]), as taught by Ho.
As for claim 11, Petras discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 the control device is further configured to: in response to the output current being below the threshold current, control the first power converter to continue
As for claim 19, Petras discloses and shows in Figs.1-3 a wireless charging system, comprising: a secondary-side (via ref’s receiver) charging apparatus; and a primary-side charging apparatus, comprising: a charging coil for electromagnetically coupling to a charging coil of the secondary-side charging apparatus at a primary side; and a first power converter (via ref’s boost), wherein the secondary-side charging apparatus comprises: a charging coil for electromagnetically coupling to the primary-side charging coil at a secondary side; a second power converter (with ref’s variable power source transmission); and a control device for controlling (ref’s adjusting and optimizing) the second power converter, wherein the control device is configured to: control the second power converter to charge a chargeable load at a first set current; receive a sensing signal (via the microcontroller power measurements) representing an output current of the first power converter at the primary side; and in response to the output current, control the second power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current. (par.[0029,0040-0044])
Petras discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current
Ho discloses and shows in Fig. 7 output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current (par.[0046-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Petras by using output current reaching or exceeding a threshold current, controlling the first power converter to charge the chargeable load at a second set current smaller than the first set current for advantages such as providing the ability to dynamically control the source (par.[0046]), as taught by Ho.
Claim(s) 7,8,16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petras et al, (Petras), (USNO.2015/0326069) in view of Ho et al, (Ho), (USNO.2009/0121675) and further in view of Kajita, (USNO.2007/0159736)
As for claims 7,8,16, and 17, Petras in combination with Ho discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose adjust the threshold current based on ambient conditions. Furthermore, ambient conditions is ambient temperature.
Kajita discloses adjust the threshold current based on ambient conditions. Furthermore, ambient conditions is ambient temperature (par.[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified combined the teachings of Petras and Ho by adjust the threshold current based on ambient temperature for advantages such as providing precise control (par. [0036]), as taught by Kajita.
Claim(s) 3,4,12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petras et al, (Petras), (USNO.2015/0326069) in view of Ho et al, (Ho), (USNO.2009/0121675) and further in view of Callahan et al, (USPATNO.5,319,301)
As for claims 3 and 12, Petras in combination with Ho discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose obtaining, based on the sensing signal, a quasi-peak value signal or a half-wave average signal corresponding to the sensing signal; and determining, based on the quasi-peak value signal or the half-wave average signal.
Callahan discloses obtaining, based on the sensing signal, a quasi-peak value signal or a half-wave average signal corresponding to the sensing signal; and determining, based on the quasi-peak value signal or the half-wave average signal (col.11, lines 66- col.12, line 28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified combined the teachings of Petras and Ho by obtaining, based on the sensing signal, a quasi-peak value signal or a half-wave average signal corresponding to the sensing signal; and determining, based on the quasi-peak value signal or the half-wave average signal for advantages such as providing the ability to improve accurate control (col.11, lines 66- col.12, line 28), as taught by Callahan.
As for claims 4 and 13, Petras in combination with Ho and Callahan discloses determining, based on the quasi-peak value signal or the half-wave average signal, the output current of the second power converter comprises: sampling the quasi-peak value signal or the half-wave average signal to determine a maximum value; and determining, based on the maximum value, the output current of the second power converter
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,15, and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6: receiving from a second current sensing device and a third current sensing device the sensing signal, wherein the second current sensing device is configured to sense a current in an upper bridge arm or a lower bridge arm of a first bridge arm of the single-phase full-bridge converter, and the third current sensing device is configured to sense a current in the lower bridge arm or the upper bridge arm of the first bridge arm, or sense a current in an upper bridge arm or a lower bridge arm of a second bridge arm of the single-phase full-bridge converter, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims .
Claim 15: second power converter is a single-phase full-bridge converter, and wherein receiving the sensing signal representing the output current of the second power converter at the primary side comprises: receiving from a second current sensing device and a third current sensing device the sensing signal, wherein the second current sensing device is configured to sense a current in an upper bridge arm or a lower bridge arm of a first bridge arm of the single-phase full-bridge converter, and the third current sensing device is configured to sense a current in the lower bridge arm or the upper bridge arm of the first bridge arm, or sense a current in an upper bridge arm or a lower bridge arm of a second bridge arm of the single-phase full-bridge converter , in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims.
Claim 21: the first second power converter is a single-phase full-bridge converter, and the wireless charging system further comprises: a second current sensing device configured to sense a current in an upper bridge arm or a lower bridge arm of a first bridge arm of the single-phase full-bridge converter, and a third current sensing device configured to sense a current in the lower bridge arm or the upper bridge arm of the first bridge arm, or configured adapted to sense a current in an upper bridge arm or a lower bridge arm of a second bridge arm of the single-phase full-bridge converter, in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. 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). 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.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights