DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for 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.
The claim recites wherein the offset amount is determined based on a moving frequency or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network.
However, even though the spec describes and offset amount and also describe the “a moving frequency or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network.”, the spec does not correlate “the offset amount” to “a moving frequency or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network” as claimed.
At best, Par 00299-30 of the PGPUB discloses the power transmission control unit 2310 may apply a predetermined power margin to the amount of transmission power at the moment when the wireless power transmission network is disconnected by taking into consideration moving frequency or the movable range of a target device that has been disconnected from the wireless power transmission network.
For example, a movable device, such as a mouse in a local computing environment, may set a power margin of about several milliwatts by taking into consideration the movable range of a corresponding device. In other words, the movable device may determine a value, obtained by adding a power margin to a value PD at the moment when a power transmission network is disconnected, to be the amount of transmission power.
Par 0220 The main device 1810 may determine the amount of transmission power based on the value PD. For example, the main device 1810 may set the amount of transmission power to be greater than the value PD by a specific value or more or may increase or decrease the amount of transmission power by a predetermined offset value compared to the value PD, may measure the power reception state of a device that has been disconnected from a wireless power transmission network again, and may determine the most proper transmission power value.
Again, no where does the spec define or explain what a predetermined offset value is.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim is not enabled because the specification does not provide sufficient detail on how to determine the offset amount based on the moving frequency or movable range. A skilled artisan would have to engage in undue experimentation to figure this out.
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, 11 and 20 are 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.
"gradually decreasing transmission power": This phrase is indefinite. The claim does not specify the rate or steps of the gradual decrease. It's unclear what "gradually decreasing" means in terms of the magnitude and timing of the power reduction.
"Determining a value PD representing an amount of transmission power at which one of the plurality of peripheral devices is first to disconnect...": This language is indefinite. It's unclear how "disconnect" is defined and detected. Also, "first to disconnect" could be ambiguous if multiple devices disconnect simultaneously.
"based, at least in part, on an offset amount above the value PD": This phrase is indefinite. The claim does not specify how the transmission power is set based on the offset amount and PD. "Based, at least in part," is vague and does not provide a clear formula or algorithm.
"wherein the offset amount is determined based on a moving frequency or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect": This phrase is indefinite. The claim does not specify how the "offset amount" is calculated based on the "moving frequency" or "movable range". It's unclear what relationship exists between these parameters and the offset. The claim does not provide sufficient guidance for a skilled artisan to determine the offset amount.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,121. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the conflicting patented claims 1-20. The difference between the instant examined claims and the conflicting patented claim is that, the conflicting patented claims are narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claims. Thus, the species or sub genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the instant examined genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claims genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus.
2. See mpep 804 (II)(B)(1)
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) 1-5, 9-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 2007/0228833) in view of Kajimura (US 2001/0023189)
Re Claims 1, 11 and 20; Stevens discloses a method of a wireless power transmitter, comprising: transmitting wireless power to a plurality of peripheral devices (secondary devices) in a power transfer coverage of a wireless power transmission network; (Par 0056)
In par 0157 Stevens discloses The primary unit 10 could periodically bring the field up to maximum magnitude and then gradually reduce it until the difference between the first and second measurements was greater than a certain threshold ("not enough power" signal). This way the primary unit would always be operating at the lowest possible field magnitude.
Stevens does not disclose
gradually decreasing transmission power of the wireless power transmitter;
determining a value PD representing an amount of power at which one of the plurality of peripheral devices is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network while gradually decreasing the transmission power; and
setting the transmission power of the wireless power transmitter to a transmission power value based, at least in part, on an offset amount above the value PD
wherein the offset amount is determined based on a moving frequency or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network.
Kajimura discloses gradually decreasing transmission power;
determining a value PD representing an amount of power at which one of the plurality of peripheral devices is first to disconnect (Failed) from the wireless power transmission network while gradually decreasing the transmission power; and
setting the transmission power of the wireless power transmitter to a transmission power value based, at least in part, on an offset amount above the value PD.(Par 0023, Claim 1).wherein the offset amount is determined based on a moving frequency (reducing the rate of power is understood as the moving frequency) or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network. (Par 0023, Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to had incorporated the idea of Kajimura with the system disclosed by Stevens in order to determine the minimum amount of power to set the transmitter and still maintain effective charging of the load so that power is not wasted.
Re Claims 2 and 12; Kajimura discloses further comprising: receiving periodic feedback from the plurality of peripheral devices when the wireless power transmitter is set to the transmission power value (Par 0100); and not receiving the periodic feedback from at least one of the plurality of peripheral devices when the wireless power transmitter is set below the value PD. (when the transmitter is set below the value PD is understood as the transmitter being powered off or disconnected and thus there is no communication with the peripheral devices and feedback won’t be received. )
Re Claim 3; Kajimura disclose further comprising: receiving feedback from the plurality of peripheral devices; and determining that a first peripheral device is disconnected when the feedback is not received from the first peripheral device for a predetermined time. (Par 0086)
Re Claims 4 and 13; Stevens discloses wherein the feedback includes power reception state information and identifier information about the plurality of peripheral devices.(Par 0042)
Re Claims 5 and 14; Stevens discloses further comprising: receiving, by the wireless power transmitter, identifier information about each of the plurality of peripheral devices. (Par 0042)
Re Claims 9 and 18 Stevens discloses wherein the wireless power transmitter is configured to supply the wireless power via a resonant channel. (Fig. 4)
Re Claims 10 and 19 Stevens discloses further comprising: forming the wireless power transmission network to provide wireless power to the plurality of peripheral devices of a local computing environment. (Par 0159).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 2007/0228833) in view of Kajimura and further in view of Urano (US 20110227420)
Re Claims 7 and 16; Stevens discloses wherein the step of checking the disconnection state of the wireless power transmission network comprises (based on the constant communication between the transmitter and the receiver):
Stevens does not disclose determining a movability of a first peripheral device of the plurality of peripheral devices based on identifier information about the first peripheral device; and controlling the wireless power transmission network based, at least in part, on the movability of the first peripheral device.
However, Urano discloses determining a movability of a first peripheral device of the plurality of peripheral devices based on identifier information about the first peripheral device; and controlling the wireless power transmission network based, at least in part, on the movability of the first peripheral device. (Par 0230-0236, note, the feedback circuit from the receiver to the transmitter constantly check the disconnection state of the wireless power transmission network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have control the transmission of power to the load based on the distance, motivated by the desire to effectively maintain the supply of power at a constant level to improve the load operation.
Re Claims 8 and 17; Stevens discloses wherein the step of checking the disconnection state of the wireless power transmission network comprises (based on the constant communication between the transmitter and the receiver):
Stevens does not disclose wherein controlling the wireless power transmission network based, at least in part, on the movability of the first peripheral device includes: adjusting a directivity of a wireless resonant channel associated with the power transfer coverage by taking into consideration a location of the first peripheral device, or increasing the amount of transmission power before decreasing the increased amount of transmission power again.
However, Kajimura discloses wherein controlling the wireless power transmission network based, at least in part, on the movability of the first peripheral device includes: adjusting a directivity of a wireless resonant channel associated with the power transfer coverage by taking into consideration a location of the first peripheral device, or increasing the amount of transmission power before decreasing the increased amount of transmission power again. (Par 0099).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have control the transmission of power to the load based on the distance, motivated by the desire to effectively maintain the supply of power at a constant level to improve the load operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claim 1, as amended, "setting the transmission power of the wireless power transmitter to a transmission power value based, at least in part, on an offset amount above the value PD, wherein the offset amount is determined based on a moving frequency or a movable range of the one of the plurality of peripheral devices that is first to disconnect from the wireless power transmission network." At least these features of claim 1 are not taught or suggested by Stevens in view of Kajimura, whether considered separately or in combination with one another.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagree, as shown in the rejection above, the amended limitation is taught by the combination.
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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 on (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.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
06/10/2025
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights