The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 8/12/2025 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1-10, 18-19 have been amended, and claims 21-22 have been newly added. Claims 1-10, 18-22 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1’s amended language, applicant argues that Kanagawa “only uses inductive power transfer, and thus lacks simultaneous inductive and capacitive power transfer…” (Remarks, pg.9). The examiner respectfully disagrees in that Kanagawa teaches transmitting power from the transmitter resonator “using electromagnetic coupling…” (pars [29, 36]). As discussed in the rejection below, electromagnetic coupling suggests both magnetic field (inductive) and electric field (capacitive) as evidenced and discussed within Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1), par [41], that states “During this electromagnetic field coupling, the transmitting resonant circuit 19 and the receiving resonant circuit 29, which are located at a distance from each other, act upon each other due to magnetic coupling, electric field coupling, or a composite thereof. Consequently, the magnetic and electric field energies of the respective resonant circuits are combined with each other and exchanged, thus generating vibration.” Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1), par [96] was relied upon to show that magnetic field includes H-field. Thus, the combination teaches the claimed subject matter. It is further noted that Jeong clearly teaches simultaneous inductive and capacitive power transfer is known in the art in par [96] and related discussion. The applicant is encouraged to structurally distinguish the claims from the prior art of record as simultaneous capacitive and inductive power is well-known in the art.
The examiner further notes that amended claim 1’s “synchronous E-field power signal” lacks written description support. The applicant cited to pars [128-153] for support (Remarks, pg.9), but none of these paragraphs describe a “synchronous E-field power signal”. In fact, the only paragraphs that use the word synchronous are pars [0148, 0151] that are in reference to a “self-synchronous rectifier”.
See below for further analysis 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 1-10, 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “… and a synchronous E-field power signal component of predetermined orientation.” The claimed “synchronous E-field power signal” lacks written description support. The applicant cited to pars [128-153] of the instant application for support; however, none of these paragraphs describe a “synchronous E-field power signal component.” The term “synchronous” is used to describe a “self-synchronous rectifier” in pars [0148, 0151], not a “synchronous E-field power signal”.
Claims 2-10 and 18-20 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “a transmission subsystem comprising two or more transmitter resonators” and then later recites “one or more corresponding transmitter modules in electrical communication with the one or more transmitter resonators…” That is, “two or more” requires two transmitter resonators, but the claim later recites “one or more” which requires one transmitter resonator. It is unclear whether the claim requires two transmitter resonators or one transmitter resonator. Additionally, if it is two transmitter resonators, would the claim require two transmitter modules, one for each transmitter resonator or one transmitter module for two transmitter resonators? For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret claim 22 as two or more transmitter modules each in electrical communication with a corresponding transmitter resonator of the two or more transmitter resonators.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 10, 21, 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein wherein each transmitter module comprises a transmitter controller…” The repeated “wherein” should be crossed out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “further comprising… a receiver resonator”, but claim 1 recites “…producing for power transfer to resonators outside the transmission subsystem…” The “resonators” in claim 1 is a receiver resonator of claim 5. If applicant the receiver resonator to be introduced in claim 5, then the “resonators” should not be in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 appears to be a duplicate of claim 9 and should either be amended to be different or canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “each receiver resonator” and "the one or more receiver resonators" in lines 2 and 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “one or more corresponding transmitter modules” (i.e., only one is required to be read into the claim), then recites “each transmitter module comprising a transmitter controller and each transmitter module and its corresponding transmitter resonator” forms a “transmitter pair”. The last wherein clause states “wherein the one or more transmitter pairs are electrically decoupled from one another.” It appears the claim intends for there to be at least two transmitter pairs for them to be actually decoupled “from one another”; however, the claim only recites “one or more”- there should be at least two or more transmitter pairs recited for “decoupled from one another” to exist. Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that this is not an exhaustive list and encourages the applicant to review the claims for antecedent basis issues as well as other issues.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a tuner module for varying a phase of the power signal” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4, 5, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Kanagawa teaches near-field wireless power transfer system comprising:
Kanagawa teaches a transmission subsystem (for e.g., see fig.1) comprising:
two or more mutually independent transmitter pairs (for e.g., fig.1, 10A, 10B; 10A and 10B are “mutually independent” transmitter pairs since each has their own transmission circuit 14, controller 15, resonator 11, 18 not shared between each other) electrically decoupled from one another (see figs.1, 4-5, pars [33, 53, 61] and related discussion; Kanagawa teaches the two mutually independent transmitter pairs are electrically decoupled from one another when switch 19B is turned off to disconnect the pair of 10B from the pair of 10A and Kanagawa teaches shield 40 is partitioned into 40A, 40B… that separates and bounds each of transmitter pair to provide electrical field decoupling- thus, Kanagawa teaches “electrically decoupled from one another”), each transmitter pair comprising a transmitter module (transmitter module items 14, 15 for 10A, 14, 15, and 19B for 10B) and a corresponding transmitter resonator (for e.g., fig.1, teaches corresponding resonators 11 and 18 noting that a “resonator” is L+C as understood in the art) in electrical communication with the transmitter module (see for e.g., fig.1);
wherein each transmitter module comprises a transmitter controller (see for e.g., fig.1, each transmitter module comprises a transmitter controller 15) controlling a power signal output to the corresponding transmitter resonator (par [30] and related discussion; 15 controls 14, which generates the transmission power/ “power signal output” required for power transmission by the resonator); and
wherein each individual transmitter resonator is arranged for power transfer to resonators (i.e., resonators 21, 22 of 20A and/or 20B) outside the transmission subsystem via a power signal (pars [29, 36]; each transmitter resonator 11, 18 transmits power outside the transmission subsystem using “electromagnetic coupling”).
Kanagawa teaches outputting power using electromagnetic coupling, which suggests both a magnetic field power signal component (the magnetic in the term “electromagnetic coupling” indicates this) and an electric field/E-field power signal component (as indicated by “electro” in electromagnetic coupling). Kanagawa, however, does not explicitly disclose that both a magnetic field power signal component and electric field/E-field power signal component are included in “electromagnetic coupling”.
Hosotani teaches it is known in the art for electromagnetic coupling to include both magnetic field and electric field (par [41] and related discussion; “During this electromagnetic field coupling, the transmitting resonant circuit 19 and the receiving resonant circuit 29, which are located at a distance from each other, act upon each other due to magnetic coupling, electric field coupling, or a composite thereof. Consequently, the magnetic and electric field energies of the respective resonant circuits are combined with each other and exchanged, thus generating vibration).
In the combination, Kanagawa’s electromagnetic field coupling would include both a magnetic field power signal component and an electric field/E-field power signal component, as discussed within Hosotani. Furthermore, in the combination, Kanagawa’s transmitter resonator is “arranged for” simultaneously producing both the magnetic field power signal component of predetermined orientation and a synchronous electric field/E-field power signal component of predetermined orientation, because the magnetic field power signal component and the electric field in “electromagnetic coupling” are simultaneously produced in that they are two components of a single, unified electromagnetic field. The electric field is “synchronous” because it is concurrent and co-exists with the magnetic field. The transmit resonators in Kanagawa are fixed and thus the magnetic field and the synchronous electric field produced by the transmit resonators are in a specific direction and are of “predetermined orientation”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagawa to that of Hosotani. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Kanagawa’s system that already teaches electromagnetic coupling and to further illustrate that electromagnetic coupling would obviously include simultaneously producing both magnetic field and E-field/electric field as discussed within Hosotani and understood by one skilled in the art.
The combination teaches the magnetic field power signal component as discussed above, which is generally known to include an H-field. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the magnetic field includes H-field.
Jeong, however, teaches that it is known in the art for magnetic field to include H-field (par [96] and related discussion; “the magnetic field (H-field) coupling… can be established simultaneously with the electric field (E-field) coupling…”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagawa in view of Hosotani to that of Jeong. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in modified Kanagawa by further illustrating that modified Kanagawa’s magnetic field would clearly and obviously include an H-field as is well-known and well-understood in the art.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the resonators of the two or more transmitter pairs are arranged to form a transmission surface (Kanagawa, see at least fig.7A; each resonator 11 forms a transmission surface defined by the front upper surface of resonator 11 facing the receiver).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and teaches further comprising one or more receiver subsystems (Kanagawa, for e.g., fig.1, 20A, etc.), each receiver subsystem comprising a receiver resonator (Kanagawa, fig.1, 20A includes receiver resonator 21, 22).
Regarding Claim 22,
Kanagawa teaches a near-field wireless power transfer system configured for simultaneous capacitive power transfer and inductive power transfer according to an adjustable transfer mode ratio of the capacitive power transfer to the inductive power transfer at a variable power signal oscillation frequency (Examiner Note: the recitation in the preamble of “simultaneous capacitive power transfer and inductive power transfer according to an adjustable transfer mode ratio… at a variable power signal oscillation frequency” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). That is, the preamble is not further limiting and does not breathe life into the body of the claim- “simultaneous…”, “adjustable transfer mode ratio”, “variable power signal oscillation frequency”, etc. are not recited in the body of the claim), the system comprising:
Kanagawa teaches a transmission subsystem (for e.g., see fig.1) comprising two or more transmitter resonators (first transmitter resonator 11, 18 in 10A and second transmitter resonator 11, 18 in 10B) configured for transmission of energy (each transmitter resonator is “configured for”/capable for transmission of energy) to one or more corresponding receiver resonators (see for e.g., fig.1, one or more corresponding receiver resonators 21, 22 of 20A and 20B), each transmitter resonator having a capacitive element (see for e.g., fig.1, capacitive element 18) and an inductive element (see for e.g., fig.1, inductive element 11) wherein each transmitter resonator is configured to transmit energy to a corresponding receiver resonator (each transmitter resonator is “configured to”/capable of transmitting energy to a corresponding receiver resonator in 20A and 20B); and
two or more corresponding transmitter modules (for e.g., fig.1, two corresponding transmitter module items 14, 15 in 10A, 14, 15, and 19B in 10B) each in electrical communication with a corresponding transmitter resonator of the two or more transmitter resonators (11, 18) for (“for” is interpreted as intended use) controlling a power signal output to each corresponding transmitter resonator of the two or more transmitter resonators (par [30]; 15 controls 14, which generates the transmission power/”power signal output” required for power transmission by each corresponding resonator), each transmitter module comprising a transmitter controller (each transmitter module comprises transmitter controller 15) and each transmitter module and its corresponding transmitter resonator forming a transmitter pair (for e.g., 14, 15 and corresponding transmitter resonator 11, 18 forms a transmitter pair in 10A and 14, 15, 19B forms a transmitter pair in 10B),
wherein the one or more transmitter pairs are electrically decoupled from one another (see figs.1, 4-5, pars [33, 53, 61] and related discussion; Kanagawa teaches the one or more transmitter pairs are electrically decoupled from one another when switch 19B is turned off to disconnect the pair of 10B from the pair of 10A and Kanagawa teaches shield 40 is partitioned into 40A, 40B… that separates and bounds each of one or more transmitter pairs to provide electrical field decoupling- thus, Kanagawa teaches “electrically decoupled from one another”).
Kanagawa teaches each transmitter resonator’s capacitive element and inductive element (11 and 18) transmits energy using electromagnetic coupling (pars [29, 36]), which suggests both the inductive element and the capacitive element are in magnetic field (i.e., the magnetic in the term “electromagnetic coupling” indicates this) and an electric field/E-field (as indicated by “electro” in electromagnetic coupling) communication with the capacitive and inductive elements of the corresponding receiver. Kanagawa, however, does not explicitly disclose that the capacitive element and the inductive element of the transmitter resonator are respectively in E-field communication and magnetic field communication with the corresponding receiver resonator’s capacitive and inductive elements.
Hosotani teaches it is known in the art during electromagnetic coupling for the capacitive element and inductive element of the transmitter resonator (see fig.1, 19, par [41]) to be in electric field/E-field communication magnetic field communication with the corresponding resonator’s capacitive and inductive elements (par [41]; “During this electromagnetic field coupling, the transmitting resonant circuit 19 and the receiving resonant circuit 29, which are located at a distance from each other, act upon each other due to magnetic coupling, electric field coupling, or a composite thereof. Consequently, the magnetic and electric field energies of the respective resonant circuits are combined with each other and exchanged, thus generating vibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagawa to that of Hosotani. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Kanagawa’s system that already teaches electromagnetic coupling and to further illustrate that the transmitter resonator’s capacitive and inductive elements, during electromagnetic coupling, would obviously include and be in E-field and magnetic field communication with the corresponding receiver resonator as is well-understood and discussed within Hosotani.
The combination teaches the inductive element of the resonator as being in magnetic field communication as discussed above, which is generally known to include an H-field. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the magnetic field communication includes H-field communication.
Jeong, however, teaches that it is known in the art for magnetic field communication to include H-field (par [96] and related discussion; “the magnetic field (H-field) coupling… can be established simultaneously with the electric field (E-field) coupling…”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagawa in view of Hosotani to that of Jeong. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in modified Kanagawa by further illustrating that modified Kanagawa’s magnetic field communication would clearly and obviously include an H-field as is well-known and well-understood in the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Matsui et al. (2016/0352154 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Kanagawa teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. Modified Kanagawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitter controller of each of transmitter module is configured for adjusting a phase of the power signal transmitted by the transmitter module to match a phase of a power signal transmitted by any other of the one or more transmitter modules.
Matsui, however, teaches adjusting a phase of the power signal transmitted by the transmitter module (for e.g., 180, 120-1, etc.) to match a phase of a power signal transmitted by any other of the one or more transmitter module (fig.3, pars [78, 107, 129]; adjusting the phase of the power signal transmitted by the transmitter module to a first resonator 110-1 to match the phase by any other of the one or more transmitter module to a second resonator 110-2).
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 each modified Kanagawa’s transmitter controller to further adjust the phase of the power signal transmitted by the transmitter module to match a phase of a power signal by any other transmitter module as taught by Matsui. The motivation would have been because matching the phase of a power signal transmitted by a transmitter module to that transmitted by another module increases the power receiving efficiency in the power receivers.
Examiner Note: Kanagawa, in a second different embodiment (fig.13), teaches matching a phase of AC power output to transmitter resonators (par [105]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Elkayam et al. (2018/0090974 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Kanagawa teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more transmitter pairs are electrically decoupled from one another by a shield grid (Kanagawa, see figs.1, 4-5, pars [33, 53, 61] and related discussion; Kanagawa’s switches provide electrical decoupling for the transmitter pairs from one another and each of the one or more transmitter pairs are separated and bounded by shield grid 40A, 40B, 40C to provide “electrical field” decoupling from one another. Therefore, the one or more transmitter pairs are “electrically decoupled” from another “by a shield grid”. Note: applicant’s spec at par [163] defines the shield “grid” as “separating and bounding the transmitter resonators”- Kanagawa’s shield has this separation and bounding and thus meeting the BRI of “grid”).
Modified Kanagawa does not explicitly disclose a grounded shield.
Elkayam, however, teaches it is known in the art to have a grounded shield (par [31]; transmitter shield 202 can be coupled to a ground connection 206).
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 modified Kanagawa’s shield grid to be grounded as taught by Elkayam. The motivation would have been to allow the voltage on the shield to be discharged to ground and thereby removing voltage from the shield.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Von Novak et al. (2010/0217553 A1).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 5. The combination does not explicitly the transmitter controller in each transmitter pair comprises a tuner module for varying a phase of the power signal.
Song, however, teaches it is known in the art for the transmitter module to comprise a tuner module (see fig.3, pars [66, 68]) for varying a phase of the power signal (pars [66, 68]; the current phase and the voltage phase of the power provided to the transmitter resonator is/are adjusted).
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 each Kanagawa’s transmitter module in each transmitter pair to further include a tuner module as discussed in Song in order to provide an optimal power to the transmitter resonator and improve the power transmission efficiency.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a load detector configured for measuring an input impedance of the transmitter resonator electrically coupled to the transmitter module, and wherein the load detector is configured to detect a change in the input impedance when the one or more receiver resonators are proximate to the corresponding transmitter resonator.
Von Novak, however, teaches a load detector (216 + the functionality part/load detector of controller 214 that determines impedance changes at the transmitter) configured for measuring an input impedance of the transmitter resonator electrically coupled to the transmitter module (pars [41-42]; “the controller 214 is also for determining impedance changes at the transmit antenna 204 due to changes in the coupling-mode region due to receivers placed therein”- 216 and the load detector as part of Von Novak’s controller 214 as it completes the claimed load detector’s functionality), and wherein the load detector is configured to detect a change in the input impedance when the one or more receiver resonators are proximate to the corresponding transmitter resonator (pars [41-42]; 214 determines input impedance changes at the transmit antenna 204 when a receiver is proximate to the transmitter).
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 the combination to that of Von Novak in order to more efficiently determine the presence and/or absence of the receiver.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches wherein the transmitter controller is configured to vary the variable power oscillation frequency based on a measured input impedance of the coupled transmitter resonator electrically coupled to the transmitter module (Von Novak, pars [41-42, 74]; Von Novak teaches measuring the input impedance due to a receiver placed in a coupling region at par 41. Von Novak teaches in pars 41-42 that due to detection of these changes, controller 214 enables the oscillator for transmitting energy to the receiver and that the oscillator is driven to oscillate at a desired frequency- this reads on “vary the variable power signal oscillation frequency based on a measured input impedance of the coupled transmitter…”).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches wherein the system is arranged to transfer power from the mutually independent resonators of the transmission subsystem to the one or more receiver resonators of the one or more receiver subsystems at a single resonant frequency (Kanagawa, pars [32-33, 36]; L+C 11 and 18 of 10A+ are “arranged to” transfer power to L+C 21 and 22 of 20A+ at a single resonant frequency/6.78 MHz).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches wherein the load detector of each transmitter module measures an input impedance of the electrically connected transmitter resonator to sense a presence of the one or more receiver resonators proximate the electrically connected transmitter resonator (Kanagawa, see fig.1, Von Novak, pars [41-42] and related discussion; Von Novak teaches the load detector that measures an input impedance of one coupled transmitter resonator to sense a presence of the receiver. Thus, in the combination, the load detector of each transmitter module measures an input impedance of the corresponding electrically connected transmitter resonator).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches wherein the load detector of each transmitter module measures an input impedance of the electrically connected transmitter resonator to sense a presence of the one or more receiver resonators proximate the electrically connected transmitter resonator (Kanagawa, see fig.1, Von Novak, pars [41-42] and related discussion; Von Novak teaches the load detector that measures an input impedance of one coupled transmitter resonator to sense a presence of the receiver. Thus, in the combination, the load detector of each transmitter module measures an input impedance of the corresponding electrically connected transmitter resonator).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Baarman (2019/0288560 A1).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Kanagawa teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches two or more corresponding power signal sources (Kanagawa, for e.g., fig.1, two or more power signal sources 14 and/or 16 corresponding to each transmitter module).
The combination does not explicitly disclose a software lookup table of discrete allowed power signal oscillation frequencies; software which when loaded in a memory and executed by the transmitter controller any of the transmitter modules performs the actions of: measuring one of an input impedance of the corresponding transmitter resonator and a test signal power draw by the corresponding transmitter resonator; and selecting for the corresponding power signal source a frequency from the lookup table based on at least one of the input impedance of the corresponding transmitter resonator and the test signal power draw by the corresponding transmitter resonator.
Baarman, however, teaches a software lookup table (par [32]; “lookup table”) of discrete allowed power signal oscillation frequencies (pars [32, 42] and related discussion; lookup table includes unique resonant frequency or pattern of frequencies for each receiver 14 along with maximum and minimum operating frequencies…); and software which when loaded in a memory (par [42]; memory of controller 40) and executed by the transmitter controller any of the transmitter modules performs the actions of: measuring one of (the recitation of “one of” means one of A or B; not one of A and one of B. If applicant intends for both input impedance test signal power draw to be read into the claim, then the claim should be amended accordingly) an input impedance of the corresponding transmitter resonator (pars [8, 31-32, 42, 44]; Baarman teaches measuring an input impedance of the corresponding transmitter resonator 48 through sensor 16. When a receiver is present, it reflects impedance into the transmitter resonator 48 and, in turn, changes the input impedance of the transmitter resonator. 16 senses/measures the input impedance at the transmitter resonator 48 and the receiver’s presence is recognized. Examiner Note: this is the same as applicant’s published disclosure in par [0111]) and a test signal power draw (test signal power draw is not required to be read into the claim due to “one of” recitation) by the corresponding transmitter resonator (48); and selecting for the corresponding power signal source a frequency from the lookup table based on at least one of the input impedance of the corresponding transmitter resonator (pars [8, 31-32, 42, 44]; controller 40 retrieves and selects from the lookup table operating parameters including an operating frequency for the power signal source “based on” the input impedance measured via 16) and the test signal power draw by the corresponding transmitter resonator.
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 modified Kanagawa to that of Baarman. The motivation would have been to recognize the presence of the receiver and to identify the type of receiver by measuring the input impedance at the transmitter resonator and applying a lookup table to retrieve the operating frequency corresponding to the receiver to efficiently power it.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Baarman (2019/0288560 A1) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Von Novak et al. (2017/0373539 A1) hereinafter referred to as Von Novak ‘539.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 18. The combination does not explicitly disclose performs the actions of measuring a level of power transferred by the corresponding transmitter resonator while adjusting a phase of a power signal from the corresponding power signal source.
Von Novak’539, however, teaches to perform the actions of measuring a level of power transferred by the corresponding transmitter resonator (see figs.2-3, 5, pars [74, 77]; controller 26 monitors power delivered by the transmitter to the receiver) while adjusting a phase of a power signal from the corresponding power signal source (abstract, pars [41, 53, 74, 77] and related discussion; while controller 26 varies the phase of a power signal from the corresponding power signal source that corresponds to the oscillator 223 and amplifier 224/power circuit 22).
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 the combination to that of Von Novak. The motivation would have been to acuate the power transmitter resonator in the combination with the phase that that yields the highest power transfer to the receiver (Von Novak, par [77]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Baarman (2019/0288560 A1) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Elkayam et al. (2018/0090974 A1).
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 18 and the combination further teaches wherein the transmitter resonators are substantially mutually decoupled by a shield grid (Kanagawa, see figs.1, 4-5, pars [33, 53, 61] and related discussion; Kanagawa teaches each of the transmitter resonators are separated and bounded by shield grid 40A, 40B, 40C to provide magnetic and electrical field decoupling from one another and other unwanted interference. Therefore, the transmitter resonators the transmitter resonators are substantially “mutually decoupled” by “a shield grid”. Note: applicant’s spec at par [163] defines the shield “grid” as “separating and bounding the transmitter resonators”- Kanagawa’s shield has this separation and bounding and thus meeting the BRI of “grid”).
The combination does not explicitly disclose a grounded shield.
Elkayam, however, teaches it is known in the art to have a grounded shield (par [31]; transmitter shield 202 can be coupled to a ground connection 206).
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 the combination’s shield grid to be grounded as taught by Elkayam. The motivation would have been to allow the voltage on the shield to be discharged to ground and thereby removing voltage from the shield.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa et al. (2017/0317532 A1) in view of Hosotani (2019/0074726 A1) in further view of Jeong et al. (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein each transmitter resonator comprises at least one transmitter antenna (Kanagawa, fig.1, Hosotani, fig.1, pars [41-42] and Jeong, fig.19, antenna 1914; Kanagawa teaches the transmitter resonator comprises at least one transmitter coil/antenna 11, Hosotani teaches the transmitter resonator comprises coil/antenna 10, and Jeong teaches the transmitter resonator comprises at least one transmitter antenna 1914) and each receiver resonator comprises at least one receiver antenna (Kanagawa, fig.1, Hosotani, fig.1, pars [41-42] and Jeong, fig.10, par [91]; Kanagawa teaches each receiver resonator comprises at least one receiver antenna 21, Hosotani teaches at least one receiver coil/antenna 20 and Jeong teaches the receiver antenna 1038); wherein each antenna forms a single resonant circuit based on an own high self-inductance and an own high self-capacitance (Kanagawa, fig.1, Hosotani, fig.1, pars [41-42] and Jeong, fig.19, par [122]; the combination teaches each antenna forms a single resonant circuit that additionally includes a capacitor noting the claim does not prohibit additional components from forming the “resonant circuit”-the claim recites “comprise” not “consisting”. Additionally, the coil/antenna’s individual structural make-up obviously includes self-capacitance and self-inductance. Since the combination teaches the structure of a coil/antenna capable of generating both magnetic and electric fields, the combination’s antenna meets “based on own high self-inductance and an own high self-capacitance”. Note: the claim does not recite distinguishing shape/size of the antenna from the prior art); wherein each of the transmitter antennas is configured to maintain both H-field communication and E-field communication with the one or more receiver resonators based on respectively their self-inductances and their self-capacitances (Kanagawa, fig.1, pars [29, 36], Hosotani, fig.1, pars [41-42] and Jeong, pars [91, 96]; the combination teaches transmitting power using electromagnetic coupling which includes maintaining both H-field/magnetic field and electric field/E-field as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and the coil/antenna’s individual structural make-up obviously includes self-capacitance and self-inductance. This is “based on” self-inductances and self-capacitances), wherein each of the transmitter module is configured for capacitive power transfer to inductive power transfer from the corresponding transmitter resonator to the corresponding one or more receiver resonator at a single variable resonant power signal oscillation frequency (Kanagawa, fig.1, pars [29, 32, 36], Hosotani, pars [41-42] and Jeong, par [96] and related discussion; Kanagawa teaches electromagnetic coupling which includes simultaneous power transfer using magnetic field/H-field/inductive power transfer and electric field/capacitive power transfer from the transmitter resonator to a receiver resonator as further discussed within Hostonai and Jeong at a single variable resonant power resonant oscillation frequency such as 6.78 MHz, but it could other frequencies making it “variable”).
The combination teaches an inherent transfer mode ratio of capacitive power transfer to inductive power transfer since both powers are simultaneously being used.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the transmitter module is configured to adjust the transfer mode ratio by adjusting the power signal.
Song, however, teaches the transmitter module (for e.g., fig.3, 320, par [66]) is configured to adjust a power signal provided to the transmitter resonator (pars [66, 68]; the power signal provided to the transmitter resonator is adjusted by adjusting the current phase and/or voltage phase of the power signal to the resonator).
Thus, in the combination, the combination’s capacitive and inductive power transfer creating an inherent transfer mode ratio between the two powers is further modified by Song’s teachings of adjusting the power signal, which adjusts the inductive power transfer/H-field. When the inductive power/H-field is adjusted, the transfer mode ratio between the capacitive and inductive power is also adjusted.
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Song. The motivation would have been to manipulate the ratio between the capacitive power and inductive power according to the intended use and desired needs to further improve the power transmission efficiency (Song, par [68]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (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 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