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 9/19/2025 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 7-9 have been amended, claims 4 and 12 have been canceled, and claims 20-21 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-21 remain pending with claims 3, 6 having been previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “As may be seen in Figs.1, 2, 4A, 5 of Karalis, every single circuit related drawing in Karalis describes an induction loop system. Power is only transferred by magnetic induction, for example via coils 208…any capacitors are in matching network 510, 216 or 222. There is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion in Karalis of bimodal transfer, that is, employing both the inductor and the capacitor of a resonator in the actual field-based power transfer. In fact, there is no capacitor in any of the disclosure of Karalis involved in E-field power transfer.” (Remarks, bridging paragraph, pgs.7-8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Karalis, in pars [43, 45-46], teaches that “electromagnetic resonators” are used for wireless energy transfer and that “a resonator may be defined as a resonant structure that can store energy in at least two different forms” which are “magnetic energy and electric energy”. Furthermore, Karalis in par [62] explicitly states that “Electromagnetic resonators may include an inductive element, a distributed inductance, or a combination of inductances with a total inductance, L, and a capacitive element, a distributed capacitance, or a combination of capacitances, with a total capacitance, C.” That is, contrary to applicant’s assertions, Karalis “electromagnetic resonator” uses both magnetic field and electric fields and has, in addition to inductance, capacitance. Furthermore, figs.8 and/or 13 clearly show capacitor(s) in the correct spot coupled to the resonator for creating resonance- while they may be part of a tuning circuit, they are clearly in the correct coupled to the resonator.
The applicant states “When power transfer is between resonators, such transfer is via both the magnetic field of the resonator’s inductances and the electric field of the resonators’ capacitances in the amended claims.” (Remarks, pg.8) The examiner believes this is exactly what Karalis teaches as previously discussed above. Karalis teaches an “electromagnetic resonator” that uses both electric and magnetic fields (see pars [45-46]) and that electromagnetic resonators include both inductance and capacitance (see par [62]). Thus, one skilled in the art would clearly understand that Karalis’ use of the term “resonator” or “resonance” to mean that a “capacitor” creates the electric field and an “inductor” creates the magnetic field.
The applicant contends the “the distinction of the amended claims is that… the quality factor of the system resonator is configured to allow that variation in frequency.” (Remarks, pg.8) The examiner, however, believes the amended language with respect to the quality factor is generally narrative and descriptive in that it does not detail any controller that calculates/knows the correct Q-factor for “freely variable” and then purposefully controls the transmitter’s resonant circuit to create the conditions necessary for this freely variable effect. The claim only mentions a generic “resonant circuit” and “enables” does not require the oscillating power signal to actually be varied- it is a recitation of capability. Nevertheless, Karalis teaches a quality factor exists in the resonator and that the Q-factor of the resonator is inversely proportional to energy losses of the resonator-thus, higher losses=lower Q-factor and lower losses= high Q-factor (Karalis, pars [47-48]). Karalis, par [52] further teaches a “useful energy exchange” may need to be lowered to 10% or greater or below 1% energy transfer efficiencies. This suggests a low Q-factor is possible with lower efficiencies/higher losses. Han (2016/0261026), pars [122, 124, 126] further teaches teaches the Q-factor is a value showing sharpness of resonance in a resonance circuit and that the resonance circuit having a small Q-factor enables the frequency of the power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range 100kHz to 280 kHz. Thus, the prior art teaches the amended language.
Lastly, the examiner rejected independent claims 1, 9, and others under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite, because the recitation of “radio frequency amplifier in radio frequency communication with an adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier” was deemed unclear because it appears to suggest some kind of data communication that would necessitate communication devices for the RF amplifier and the adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier to be capable of communicating with each other (see non-final, dated 4/29/2025, pg.5). The applicant stated that the amendments address the rejections; however, the amendment crossed out “adjustable phase” in claim 1 while maintaining “adjustable phase” in claim 9 without addressing the indefiniteness of the language. The independent claims should be amended to precisely define what the applicant intends by “radio frequency communication” so that the scope of the claims is clear. As such, the examiner believes the 112b rejections should be maintained for these claims.
See below for further analysis of the newly amended language.
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 20-21 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.
Claims 20 and 21 each recite “…an inductance in the transmitter resonator is placed in B-field communication with an inductance in the receiver resonator…” There is no written description that the inductances of the resonators are in “B-field communication”. Instead, it appears that they are in H-field communication. For example, the applicant’s disclosure states that “…generate sufficient power to transmitter resonator 30 such that the E-field, or H-field, or any combination of E-field and H-field can be generated by transmitter resonator 30 and captured by receiver resonator 50.”
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-21 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 1 recites “…a radio frequency amplifier in radio frequency communication with a radio frequency rectifier.” It is unclear what applicant intends by the recitation of “radio frequency communication”, because this recitation appears to suggest some kind of data communication that would necessitate communication devices for the RF amplifier and the radio frequency rectifier to be capable of communicating with each other. However, no such communication devices are claimed and/or disclosed in applicant’s disclosure. As such, the claim fails to unambiguously define what is intended by “radio frequency communication”. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “radio frequency communication” as best understood (see rejections below).
Claim 9, similar to claim 1, recites “an adjustable radio frequency rectifier… in radio frequency communication with the power amplifier…” Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the method… providing the power amplifier in wireless near-field radio frequency communication with the adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier.” Claim 7 is generally narrative and indefinite and does not provide the necessary clarity and required precision to define what applicant intends by “wireless near-field radio frequency communication”. It appears that the claim suggests wireless data communication exchange between the RF amplifier and the rectifier, but there is no communication devices claimed to make such communication happen. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “wireless near-field radio frequency communication” as best understood (see rejections below).
Claim 8 recites “…the step of providing the power amplifier in bimodal near-field wireless communication with the rectifier.” It is unclear how the power amplifier can be in “bimodal communication” when claim 1, step d, only recites a generic resonant circuit. It is further noted that claim 1 recites the “…power amplifier in radio frequency communication with a radio frequency rectifier” and claim 8 recites the “power amplifier in bimodal near-field wireless communication…” How can the amplifier be both in radio frequency communication and bimodal near-field at the same time? Radio frequency and near-field are not interchangeable. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood (see rejections below).
Claim 15 is an apparatus claim that recites “wherein the power amplifier is in wireless near-field radio frequency communication with the rectifier.” Claim 15 is generally narrative and indefinite, because it does not further structurally narrow the claim noting that claim generally recites what the apparatus does, without requisite structure. The “power amplifier” is already introduced in claim 9. There is no further limiting structure recited in claim 15 and it is unclear what the applicant intends by “wireless near-field radio frequency communication”. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “wireless near-field radio frequency communication” as best understood (see rejections below).
Claim 16 recites “…wherein the power amplifier is in bimodal near-field wireless radio frequency communication with the rectifier.” Claim 15 is generally narrative and indefinite, because it does not further structurally narrow the claim noting that claim generally recites what the apparatus does, without requisite structure. The “power amplifier” is already introduced in claim 9 and it is unclear what structure is intended by “bimodal near-field wireless radio frequency communication with the rectifier.” For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 2, 5, 20 depend on independent claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and claims 10-11, 13, 17-19, 21 depend on independent claim 9 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 9.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces in limitation (a) “the power transfer system comprising a radio frequency power amplifier in radio frequency communication with a radio frequency rectifier…” and then in limitation (d) introduces in a wherein clause “a resonant circuit in the power transfer system…” The resonant circuit is not positively claimed. It should be introduced in limitation (a), not in a wherein clause in limitation (d). Furthermore, the claim does not recite any electrical connections between the resonant circuit to any component in the power transfer system. What is the resonant circuit connected to in the power transfer system? Appropriate Correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “the adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier.” The “adjustable phase” should be crossed out to be congruent with claim 1.
Claim 9, similar to claim 1, introduces “a resonant circuit” in a wherein clause in limitation (c) and is not positively recited. The resonant circuit should be positively recited by giving it its own paragraph (just like the radio frequency amplifier and adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier were given their own paragraphs) and to further define electrical connections between the resonant circuit and the rest of the components in the system.
Claim 9 recites “radio frequency oscillating power signal.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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:
“Power conditioning unit configured for adjusting at least one of a current and a voltage from the power source to improve the efficiency of the power transfer” in claim 19.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-11, 15-16, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalis et al. (2013/0033118 A1) in view of Han et al. (2016/0261026 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Desai et al. (2017/0040831 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Karalis teaches a method for power transfer from a direct current power source (par [239]; “DC voltage source”) to a power load (“load”), the method comprising:
a. providing a power transfer system (for e.g., see fig.24) in wired electrical communication with the power source (for e.g., see fig.24), the power transfer system comprising a radio frequency power amplifier (par [74], 2402; “RF amplifier”) in communication with a rectifier (2408, pars [241, 247-248]; the rectifier 2408 is in communication with the power amplifier noting that Karalis’ structure of the rectifier on the receiver side connected to receiver resonator 2424 and the RF amplifier 2402 connected to the transmitter resonator 2422 is the same as applicant’s fig.19A- thus, the rectifier and the amplifier are in “communication") in wired electrical contact with the power load (for e.g., see fig.24);
b. converting the power from the direct current source into a radio frequency oscillating power signal in the amplifier (pars [74, 239] and related discussion; Karalis teaches an “RF amplifier” 2402 and teaches converting the DC voltage of the DC power source to a radio frequency oscillating signal in the RF amplifier);
c. converting the oscillating power signal to direct current power signal in the rectifier (pars [74, 246-248]; the rectifier 2408 converts the oscillating power signal to direct current power signal in the rectifier); and
d. adjusting an efficiency of the power transfer by adjusting the radio frequency oscillating power signal (pars [238-239, 242-243] and related discussion; adjusting the phase shift of the amplifier’s switching elements to adjust the oscillating power signal output of the amplifier), wherein providing the power transfer system comprises providing a resonant circuit in the power transfer system having a quality factor (pars [47-48, 52, 62] and related discussion; Karalis teaches that a resonant circuit includes a quality factor and that the Q-factor is “inversely proportional to energy losses of the resonator.”)
Karalis teaches the Q-factor of the resonator is inversely proportional to energy losses of the resonator-thus, higher losses=lower Q-factor and lower losses= high Q-factor (Karalis, pars [47-48]). Karalis, par [52] further teaches a “useful energy exchange” may need to be lowered to 10% or greater or below 1% energy transfer efficiencies. This suggests a low Q-factor is possible with lower efficiencies/higher losses. However, Karalis does not explicitly disclose the intended effect that the resonant circuit having the quality factor enables the frequency oscillating power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range.
Han, however, teaches it is known in the art for the resonant circuit to have the quality factor that enables the frequency oscillating power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range (pars [122, 124, 126]; Han teaches the Q-factor is a value showing sharpness of resonance in a resonance circuit and further teaches the resonance circuit having a small Q-factor enables the frequency of the power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range 100kHz to 280 kHz).
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 Karalis to that of Han. The motivation would have been to control the transfer efficiency according to the intended use and purpose of the system. Additionally, a wider operational frequency band can be achieved by having a small Q-factor.
The combination does not explicitly disclose adjusting a phase difference between a current and a voltage of the oscillating power signal.
Song, however, teaches it is known in the art to adjust an efficiency of the power transfer by adjusting a phase difference between a current and a voltage of the oscillating power signal (pars [66, 68]; Song teaches controller 330 controls the current phase and/or voltage phase of the power provided to the resonator for efficiency purposes. Thus, by controlling current phase or the voltage phase, the phase difference between the two is 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 combined the teachings of modified Karalis to that of Song. The motivation been to improve on Karalis’ adjusting of the phase shift of the amplifier to adjust the “power” by allowing the controller to adjust the phases of the individual components (current and/or voltage), not just of “power”. This, in turn, results in the benefit of a more robust efficiency control (Song, par [66]).
Modified Karalis teaches the “RF amplifier” on the transmitter side and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously understand that the rectifier on the receiver side would consequently be a radio frequency rectifier that converts the received RF signal to DC signal. However, modified Karalis does not explicitly disclose the rectifier is a radio frequency rectifier. In order to expedite prosecution, Desai is being relied upon to further illustrate an RF rectifier.
Desai (fig.1), similar to modified Karalis, teaches it is known in the art to have an RF power amplifier (18, par [34]) in wired electrical communication with the direct current source (14, par [33]), converting from the direct current source into a radio frequency oscillating power signal in the amplifier (18, pars [33, 35]), and converting the radio frequency signal to direct current power signal in an RF rectifier (24, par [36]; RF rectifier 24 converts the RF signal to DC).
Therefore, in the combination, the rectifier in Karalis is obviously a radio frequency rectifier and is in radio frequency communication with the RF power amplifier.
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 modified Karalis with the teachings of Desai. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Karalis and further illustrate that Karalis’ rectifier on the receiver side would obviously be an RF rectifier so that it can handle and work with RF signals as is commonly known and desired in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the direct current power source comprises at least one solar photovoltaic cell (Karalis, pars [56, 239]; “energy source like a DC voltage source”, and “the energy source may be a battery, a solar panel…”-thus, the energy source is obviously the solar panel, which includes at least one PV cell).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches adjusting the efficiency of the power transfer by changing an oscillation frequency of the power amplifier (Karalis, pars [130, 239] and related discussion; Karalis teaches a tunable amplifier and adjusting the driving frequency/switching frequency/oscillation frequency of the amplifier. This adjustment, in turn, adjusts the overall efficiency of the power transfer as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the step of providing the power amplifier in wireless near-field radio frequency communication with the adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier (Karalis, for e.g., fig.24, pars [74, 239] and Desai, fig.1, pars [34-36]; Karalis teaches the RF amplifier is in wireless near-field RF communication with the adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier since the system is a near field wireless system and an RF system through their resonators. Desai similarly teaches RF amplifier 18 and RF rectifier 24 are in wireless near field RF communication through resonators 20, 22. This is the same structure as what is illustrated by applicant’s fig.19A and thus meets the limitations).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the step of providing the power transfer system comprises the step of providing the power amplifier in bimodal near-field wireless communication with the rectifier (Karalis, pars [43, 45-46, 62, 74, 239] and Desai, fig.1, pars [34-36]; Karalis teaches the RF amplifier is in bimodal near-field wireless communication with the rectifier as a function of the electromagnetic resonator(s) that uses both electric and magnetic fields and has inductance and capacitance as discussed in the response to arguments and further noting the indefiniteness of the claim in the 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 9,
Karalis teaches an electrical power transfer system for supplying power from a direct current source (par [239]; “DC voltage source”) to a power load (“load”), the system comprising:
a. a radio frequency power amplifier (par [74], 2402; “RF amplifier”) in wired electrical communication with the direct current source (see, for e.g., fig.24, pars [74, 239]) and configured to convert direct current voltage from the source into an alternating voltage signal having an oscillation frequency (par [239]; Karalis teaches the ability for the RF amplifier 2402 to convert dc into an alternating voltage signal read on by the oscillating voltage having an oscillation frequency);
b. an adjustable phase rectifier (2408, pars [247-248]) in wired electrical contact with the power load (for e.g., see fig.24) and in communication with the power amplifier (see, for e.g., fig.24, par [241]; the adjustable phase rectifier 2408 is in communication with the power amplifier noting that Karalis’ structure of the rectifier on the receiver side connected to receiver resonator 2424 and the RF amplifier 2402 connected to the transmitter resonator 2422 is the same as applicant’s fig.19A- thus, the rectifier and the amplifier are in “communication”); the rectifier (2408) configured to receive power transferred from the amplifier (the rectifier 2408 is has the ability/configured to receive power from amplifier 2402 via 2422, 2424); and
c. a transmitter controller (2410) in communication with the amplifier (2402), the transmitter controller configured for adjusting an efficiency of power transfer from the amplifier (2402) to the rectifier (2408) by adjusting the radio frequency oscillating power signal (pars [238-239, 242-243] and related discussion; adjusting the phase shift of the amplifier’s switching elements to adjust the oscillating power signal output of the amplifier), wherein the power transfer system has a resonant circuit having a quality factor (pars [47-48, 52, 62] and related discussion; Karalis teaches that a resonant circuit includes a quality factor and that the Q-factor is “inversely proportional to energy losses of the resonator.”)
Karalis teaches the Q-factor of the resonator is inversely proportional to energy losses of the resonator-thus, higher losses=lower Q-factor and lower losses= high Q-factor (Karalis, pars [47-48]). Karalis, par [52] further teaches a “useful energy exchange” may need to be lowered to 10% or greater or below 1% energy transfer efficiencies. This suggests a low Q-factor is possible with lower efficiencies/higher losses. However, Karalis does not explicitly disclose the intended effect that the resonant circuit having the quality factor enables the frequency oscillating power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range.
Han, however, teaches it is known in the art for the resonant circuit to have the quality factor that enables the frequency oscillating power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range (pars [122, 124, 126]; Han teaches the Q-factor is a value showing sharpness of resonance in a resonance circuit and further teaches the resonance circuit having a small Q-factor enables the frequency of the power signal to vary freely within a predetermined range 100kHz to 280 kHz).
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 Karalis to that of Han. The motivation would have been to control the transfer efficiency according to the intended use and purpose of the system. Additionally, a wider operational frequency band can be achieved by having a small Q-factor.
The combination does not explicitly disclose adjusting a phase difference between a current and a voltage of the oscillating power signal.
Song, however, teaches it is known in the art to adjust an efficiency of the power transfer by adjusting a phase difference between a current and a voltage of the oscillating power signal (pars [66, 68]; Song teaches controller 330 controls “the current phase and/or voltage phase” of the power provided to the resonator for efficiency purposes. Thus, by controlling current phase or the voltage phase, the phase difference between the two is 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 combined the teachings of modified Karalis to that of Song. The motivation been to improve on Karalis’ adjusting of the phase shift of the amplifier to adjust the “power” by allowing the controller to adjust the phases of the individual components (current and/or voltage), not just of “power”. This, in turn, results in the benefit of a more robust efficiency control (Song, par [66]).
Modified Karalis teaches the “RF amplifier” on the transmitter side and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously understand that the adjustable phase rectifier on the receiver side would consequently be a radio frequency rectifier that converts the received RF signal to DC signal. However, modified Karalis does not explicitly disclose the rectifier is a radio frequency rectifier. In order to expedite prosecution, Desai is being relied upon to further illustrate an RF rectifier.
Desai (fig.1), similar to Karalis, teaches it is known in the art to have an RF power amplifier (18, par [34]) in wired electrical communication with the direct current source (14, par [33]), and an RF rectifier (24, par [36]; RF rectifier 24 receives an RF signal and outputs DC).
Therefore, in the combination, the adjustable phase rectifier in Karalis is obviously a radio frequency rectifier and is in radio frequency communication with the RF power amplifier.
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 modified Karalis with the teachings of Desai. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in modified Karalis and further illustrate that Karalis’ rectifier on the receiver side would obviously be an RF rectifier so that it can handle and work with RF signals as is commonly known and desired in the art.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and further teaches wherein the receiver controller is configured for automatically adjusting the efficiency of the power transfer (Karalis, pars [246-248]; Karalis teaches the rectifier switches are controlled via a “feedback loop” by the receiver controller 2414 which measures the output voltage and current to adjust the phase shift of the rectifier switches, which corresponds to “automatically” adjusting the efficiency of the power transfer since there’s no manual or human intervention).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9. The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a load management system in wired communication with the load and power signal-wise disposed between the load and the rectifier, the load management system configured for increasing an efficiency of the power transfer by automatically adjusting an input impedance of the rectifier. Desai (fig.4), however, teaches further comprising a load management system (Desai, item 56) in wired communication with the load (Desai, fig.4; 56 in wired communication with the load/battery) and power signal-wise disposed between the load and the rectifier (Desai, 52, see fig.4; 56 disposed between the load/battery and the rectifier 52), the load management system (Desai, 56) configured for increasing an efficiency of the power transfer by automatically adjusting an input impedance of the rectifier (Desai, 56, pars [19-20, 56-57]; the load management 56 is automatically adjusted via the receiver controller such that the input impedance of the rectifier is adjusted to maximize/increase the efficiency of the power transfer).
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 modified Karalis to that of Desai. The motivation would have been to substantially maximize and thereby improve the efficiency of power transfer by adjusting an input impedance of the rectifier via the load management system as taught within Desai.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and further teaches wherein the power amplifier is in wireless near-field radio frequency communication with the rectifier (Karalis, for e.g., fig.24, pars [74, 239] and Desai, fig.1, pars [34-36]; Karalis teaches the RF amplifier is in wireless near-field RF communication with the adjustable phase radio frequency rectifier since the system is a near field wireless system and an RF system through their resonators. Desai similarly teaches RF amplifier 18 and RF rectifier 24 are in wireless near field RF communication through resonators 20, 22. This is the same structure as what is illustrated by applicant’s fig.19A and thus meets the limitations).
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and further teaches wherein the power amplifier is in bimodal near-field wireless radio frequency communication with the rectifier (Karalis, pars [43, 45-46, 62, 74, 239] and Desai, fig.1, pars [34-36]; Karalis teaches the RF amplifier is in bimodal near-field wireless radio frequency communication with the rectifier as a function of the electromagnetic resonator(s) that uses both electric and magnetic fields and has inductance and capacitance as discussed in the response to arguments and further noting the indefiniteness of the claim in the 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and the combination further teaches a power conditioning unit (Desai, fig.1, 16, par [34]; the BRI of “power conditioning unit” can be a buck converter since it conditions the voltage from the source to a lower voltage) electrically disposed between the power source and the power amplifier (see Desai, fig.1, 16 between 14 and 18), the power conditioning unit configured for adjusting at least one of a current and a voltage (i.e., one or the other, but not both) from the power source to improve the efficiency of the power transfer (Desai, fig.1, par [34]; Desai teaches the power conditioning unit, for e.g., may be a buck converter, which adjusts a higher input voltage from the source to a lower voltage to improve the efficiency of the power transfer).
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 8 and further teaches wherein providing the power amplifier in bimodal near-field wireless communication with the rectifier comprises providing a transmitter resonator in wired communication with the power amplifier (Karalis, pars [43, 45-46, 62, 239, 242]; Karalis teaches a transmitter “resonator” 2422 in wired communication with amplifier 2402) and providing a receiver resonator in wired communication with the rectifier (Karalis, pars [43, 45-46, 62, 257] and related discussion; a receiver “resonator” 2424 in wired communication with the rectifier 2408); wherein an inductance in the transmitter resonator is placed in B-field communication with an inductance in the receiver resonator (Karalis, pars [43, 45-46, 62, 239, 242, 257] and related discussion; Karalis teaches wireless energy transfer using coupled electromagnetic resonators and further teaches a resonator uses magnetic energy and includes an inductive element/inductance L. Therefore, the transmitter resonator is placed in B-field communication with an inductance of the receiver resonator because the current flowing through the transmitter resonator creates a B-field (magnetic flux) that induces a voltage and current in the receiver resonator); and wherein a capacitance in the transmitter resonator is placed in E-field communication with a capacitance in the receiver resonator (Karalis, pars [43, 45-46, 62, 239, 242, 257] and related discussion; Karalis teaches that electromagnetic resonators, in addition, to using magnetic field uses electric field and that they include a capacitive element or combination of capacitances. Thus, the capacitance in the transmitter resonator is placed in E-field communication with a capacitance in the receiver resonator).
Examiner Note: The claim merely states that the inductance and capacitance of the transmitter resonator is in B-field and E-field communication with the inductance and capacitance of the receiver resonator, respectively. Karalis explicitly teaches resonators that use both fields and that have inductance and capacitance. The claim does not distinguish over the resonators of Karalis.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 20 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalis et al. (2013/0033118 A1) in view of Han et al. (2016/0261026 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Desai et al. (2017/0040831 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Govindaraj et al. (2018/0083489).
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 11. The combination does not explicitly disclose an oscillator in communication with the amplifier and the transmitter controller, wherein the transmitter controller is configured for adjusting the oscillation frequency via the oscillator.
Govindaraj (figs.2, 4), however, teaches further comprising an oscillator (222) in communication with the amplifier (224, par [22]) and the transmitter controller (shown in fig.4, 415), wherein the transmitter controller is configured for adjusting the oscillation frequency via the oscillator (pars [22, 35-36]; 415 adjusts the oscillation frequency via adjusting the frequency of the oscillator via control signal 223).
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 modified Karalis to that of Govindaraj. The motivation would have been to generate a stable signal at a desired target frequency boosted by the amplifier for transmission and reception.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalis et al. (2013/0033118 A1) in view of Han et al. (2016/0261026 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Desai et al. (2017/0040831 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Takahashi et al. (2018/0152056 A1).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and further teaches wherein the direct current source comprises a rechargeable battery (Karalis, for e.g., fig.24, pars [234, 236, 239] and Desai. fig.1, 14, par [33]; Karalis teaches the DC source battery “VDC” and wireless power between the source and the device is bidirectional-thus the battery is a rechargeable battery).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the load comprises an electric motor.
Takahashi (fig.6), however, teaches the load comprises an electric motor (pars [92, 176] and related discussion).
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 modified Karalis to that of Takahashi so that the load is an electric motor. The motivation would have been an obvious matter of design choice since the applicant has not disclosed the type of load solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose besides receiving supplied power from the source and thus it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any type of load, which is based on the intended use of the application.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalis et al. (2013/0033118 A1) in view of Han et al. (2016/0261026 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Desai et al. (2017/0040831 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Widmer (2011/0254503 A1).
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and further teaches a resonant structure of the system (Karalis, pars [45, 243]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose at least one electrically conductive mechanical load bearing structural component of the system.
Widmer, however, further teaches the resonant structure of the system (pars [75, 140, 161]) comprises at least one electrically conductive mechanical load bearing structural component of the system (pars [140, 161, 163]; electrically conductive load bearing structure read on by the chassis of the vehicle. The chassis is electrically conductive because successful wireless power is completed by the receiver resonator receiving power at the underside of the chassis to charge the battery).
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 modified Karalis to that of Widmer. The motivation would have been to successfully complete wireless power transfer for uses such as a vehicle that would obviously require the resonant structure of the system to have a conductive load bearing structure in the chassis of the vehicle to wirelessly receive power and charge the vehicle’s battery/load.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalis et al. (2013/0033118 A1) in view of Han et al. (2016/0261026 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Desai et al. (2017/0040831 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Pan et al. (2018/0159353 A1).
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and Desai further teaches a type of power conditioning unit (Desai, fig.1, 16, par [34]; buck converter type) electrically disposed between the power source and the power amplifier (see Desai, fig.1, 16 between 14 and 18), the type of power conditioning unit configured for adjusting at least one of a current and a voltage (i.e., one or the other, but not both) from the power source to improve the efficiency of the power transfer (Desai, fig.1, par [34]; Desai teaches the type of power conditioning unit, for e.g., may be a buck converter, which adjusts a higher input voltage from the source to a lower voltage to improve the efficiency of the power transfer).
While the combination teaches a type of power conditioning unit in a buck converter, the combination does not explicitly disclose the type of power conditioning unit (i.e., a boost converter) as disclosed within applicant’s disclosure in par [0218]. In order to expedite prosecution, Pan is being relied upon for the teachings of boost converter type power conditioning unit as disclose within applicant’s disclosure.
Pan (fig.4A) teaches a boost converter power conditioning unit (414) disposed between the power source (Vin) and the power amplifier (420), the power conditioning unit configured for adjusting at least one of a current and a voltage (i.e., one or the other, but not both) from the power source to improve the efficiency of the power transfer (Pan, par [29]; step up the input voltage from the source to a higher voltage).
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 buck converter type of power conditioning unit to that of Pan’s boost type power conditioning unit. The motivation would have been an obvious design choice as choosing a boost type of power conditioning unit over a buck type comes down to the desired output voltage relative to the input voltage. A boost converter maximizes energy from a lower voltage source as commonly known in the art.
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