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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/05/ 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for lack of antecedent support or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 11, insert “a” before “movement”.
Claim 1, line 14, insert “the” before “movement”.
Claim 2, line 1, insert “the” before “at least”.
Claim 2, line 2, insert “the” before “at least”.
Claim 3, line 1, insert “the” before “at least”.
Claim 3, line 2, insert “the” before “at least”.
Claim 4, line 1, insert “a” before “non-volatile”.
Claim 4, line 8, insert “the” before “startup”.
Claim 6, line 1, insert “a” before “non-volatile”.
Claim 6, line 3, insert “a” before “first”.
Claim 6, line 4, insert “an” before “alignment”.
Claim 6, line 4, replace “the wireless” with “a wireless”.
Claim 6, line 9, insert “the” before “movement”.
Claim 6, line 11, insert “a” before “second”.
Claim 6, line 11, insert “the” before “alignment”.
Claim 6, line 12, replace “a wireless” with “the wireless”.
Claim 7, line 1, insert “a” before “non-volatile”.
Claim 7, line 7, insert “the” before “power”.
Claim 8, line 4, insert “the” before “movement”.
Claim 8, line 7, insert “the” before “power”.
Claim 8, line 10, insert “the” before “power”.
Claim 10, line 2, insert “the” before “power”.
Claim 11, line 7, replace “a fault” with “the fault”.
Claim 14, line 3, insert “the” before “power”.
Claim 15, line 3, delete “on the determined temperature by determining to resume the determined interrupted operation”.
Claim 17, line 5, delete “on the determined temperature”.
Claim 17, line 6, delete “from”.
Claim 18, line 15, replace “a fault” with “the fault”.
Claim 19, line 2, replace “a fault” with “the fault”.
Claim 19, line 2, replace “a wireless” with “the wireless”.
Claim 19, line 4, replace “a power” with “the power”.
Claim 20, line 1, insert “a” before “non-volatile”.
Claim 20, line 6, replace “a fault” with “the fault”.
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The present application includes claims 1, 12, and 18 as independent claims. However, as presented, claim 13 is depending on claim 11, which depends from independent claim 1. Reviewing claims 14-17, which directly or indirectly depend from claim 13, the recitations of these claims are not further defining the features of claim 11 and independent claim 1. Rather, claims 14-17 are further defining the features of claim 13 and independent claim 12. Thus, for purposes of examination, the dependency of claim 13 will be construed to depend from independent claim 12. Appropriate correction through claim amendment is respectfully requested. In view of their dependencies to a rejected base claim, claims 14-17 are also rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, “... determining the interrupted operation being performed by the wirelessly powered appliance when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance; determining whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as a result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance; determining whether to resume the determined interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as the result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance ...”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0050]-[0061], for instance, the determining limitations are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, selectively resume an interrupted operation of a wirelessly powered appliance after an unintentional power loss by, during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance:…causing the wirelessly powered appliance to automatically resume the interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether to resume the determined interrupted operation.”
These additional features including “one or more processors”, “one or more memories”, and “causing the wirelessly powered appliance” to selectively resume based on a conditional limitation being met, as recited in the claim that is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used as recited in independent claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “one or more processors”, “one or more memories”, and “causing the wirelessly powered appliance” to resume based on a conditional limitation being met, as recited in the claim that is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
Therefore, the additional claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, and 9, these claims are directed to further applying the generic electronic devices of independent claim 1 and further including electronic devices such as an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or an inclinometer (claim 5). Therefore, claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 are not integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Thus, claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 7, claim 4 recites “storing movement data captured by a motion sensor of the wirelessly powered appliance during performance of the interrupted operation and prior to the startup of the wirelessly powered appliance, and wherein the instructions are configured to determine whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as a result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance”; claim 6 recites “storing first harvested power data associated with alignment of the wireless power transmitter and a wireless power receiver of the wirelessly powered appliance prior to the loss of power of the wirelessly powered appliance, and wherein the instructions are configured to determine whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as a result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance to compare the first harvested power data with second harvested power data associated with alignment of the wireless power transmitter and a wireless power receiver of the wirelessly powered appliance after the loss of power of the wirelessly powered appliance”; and claim 7 recites “storing operational state data for the wirelessly powered appliance during performance of the interrupted operation and prior to the startup of the wirelessly powered appliance, and wherein the instructions are configured to determine the interrupted operation being performed by the wirelessly powered appliance when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance”. (Emphasis added)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0050]-[0061], for instance, the determining limitations of claims 4, 6, and 7 are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the storing limitations recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, which are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations, individually or combined, are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The storing limitations are examples of activities that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a generic manner. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (storing and retrieving information in memory).
Therefore, the claimed features, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and claims 4, 6, and 7 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 11, these claims are also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 8, 10, and 11 are not patent eligible.
The recitations of independent claims 12 and 18 are implemented by similar recitations as those of the apparatus of claim 1 with substantially the same limitations. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 1 above also applies to claims 12 and 18. Independent claims 12 and 18 are not deemed patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is directed to further applying the generic electronic devices of independent claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 is not integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claim also does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 14, 15-17, and 19, these claims are also directed to further defining the abstract idea as recited in independent claims 12 and 18. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 14, 15-17, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites “storing fault data associated with the fault in the wireless power transmitter prior to the startup of the wirelessly powered appliance, and wherein the instructions are configured to determine whether the power loss was the result of a fault in the wireless power transmitter by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance”. (Emphasis added)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0050]-[0061], for instance, the determining limitation of claim 20 is a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the storing limitation recited in this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, which is merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In view of the foregoing, the additional limitation, individually or combined, is not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The storing limitations are examples of activities that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a generic manner. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (storing and retrieving information in memory).
Therefore, the claimed feature, individually or combined, do not amount to significantly more and claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agafonov (US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0204569 A1) (“Agafonov”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Agafonov teaches:
An apparatus, comprising: Agafonov: Paragraph [0001] (“…a wireless power transfer system and in particular, but not exclusively, to the operation of a power transmitter providing inductive power transfer to high power devices, such as e.g. kitchen appliances.”)
one or more processors; and Agafonov: Paragraph [0083] (“In some embodiments, the power detector 211 may simply detect that a power up process is ongoing and for example the power detector 211 may be implemented as part of a start-up/boot process of a processor that implements functionality of the power transmitter.”)
one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, selectively resume an interrupted operation of a wirelessly powered appliance after an unintentional power loss by, during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance: Agafonov: Paragraph [0133] (“…the time of disruption was stored in non-volatile memory, the information would be retained even if no power is available to the power receiver.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0008] (“The Wireless Power Consortium has on the basis of the Qi Specification proceeded to develop the Ki Specification (also known as the Cordless Kitchen Specification) which is aimed at providing safe, reliable, and efficient wireless power transfer to kitchen appliances.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0082] (“The power transmitter of FIG. 4 specifically further comprises a power detector 211 which is arranged to detect that arranged to detect when the supply power is restored following an outage of the supply power provided to the power transmitter. For example, the power transmitter may typically be arranged to be (semi)permanently coupled to the mains supply. E.g., for a kitchen application where the power transmitter is built into a kitchen work surface to provide power to any power receiver positioned appropriately on the work surface, the power transmitter is typically permanently connected to the mains network such that it is capable of powering a power receiver whenever needed.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0083] (“The power detector 211 may detect that power is restored following a power outage. In some embodiments, the power detector 211 may simply detect that a power up process is ongoing and for example the power detector 211 may be implemented as part of a start-up/boot process of a processor that implements functionality of the power transmitter.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0084] (“The power transmitter further comprises a presence/proximity detector 213 arranged to detect a presence of the power receiver at restoring of the supply power. Thus, when power is being (or has been) restored, the presence detector 213 is arranged to determine whether a power receiver is present/proximal. The presence detector 213 may specifically detect if a power receiver is present in a suitable configuration for power transfer from the power transmitter to the power receiver to be performed.”) [Once power is restored, the power detector and the power transmitter resuming power transfer from the power transmitter to the power receiver between the kitchen work surface and the appliance reads on “selectively resume an interrupted operation of a wirelessly powered appliance after an unintentional power loss by, during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance”.]
determining the interrupted operation being performed by the wirelessly powered appliance when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance; Agafonov: Paragraphs [0082] [As described above.] Agafonov: Paragraph [0073] (“The approach will be described with reference to FIG. 2 which illustrates exemplary elements of the power transmitter 101 of FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 which illustrates exemplary elements of the power receiver 105. In the example, the power transmitter 101 and the power receiver 105 are arranged to detect an interruption in an ongoing power transfer and to safely and securely restart/reinitialize the power transfer operation without performing a full initialization/configuration if this is feasible. Further, the system is arranged to differentiate between situations in which it is appropriate to restart the power transfer and situations in which a new power transfer should be initialized by going through the normal power transfer initialization phase.”) [The power transfer or the appliance receiving the power when the interruption occurs reads on “the interrupted operation being performed by the wirelessly powered appliance”.]
determining whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as a result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance; Agafonov: Paragraph [0088] (“In some embodiments, the user action detector 217 may be arranged to directly detect an action being applied to the power receiver e.g. by itself sensing or detecting a movement or change of the power receiver.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0105] (“The user action detector 217 may for example continuously receive data from the presence detector 215 indicating whether a power receiver is detected in the environment or not, and may detect if the power receiver is removed and then replaced on the power transmitter by considering that such an operation would correspond to a detection of a sequence of the power receiver first being present during power restoration, then no power receiver being present, followed by a detection of a power receiver being present.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0106] (“If no power receiver is present when the power is being restored, the power transmitter will not initiate any power transfer as there is no power receiver to which to provide power.”)
determining whether to resume the determined interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as the result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance; and Agafonov: Paragraphs [0082] and [0084] [As described above.] Agafonov: Paragraph [0083] (“The power detector 211 may detect that power is restored following a power outage. In some embodiments, the power detector 211 may simply detect that a power up process is ongoing and for example the power detector 211 may be implemented as part of a start-up/boot process of a processor that implements functionality of the power transmitter. In other embodiments, the power detector 211 may for example include a dedicated power detector circuit which e.g. measures a voltage over a smoothing capacitor that smoothes a rectified input voltage. In some embodiments, a more complex criterion may be used for detecting that a power restore operation is performed such as e.g. including a consideration of a temporal aspect of a property of the input supply power, such as e.g. a consideration of a duration of the power outage, of the input voltage variation as a function of time, a minimum input power/voltage during the outage etc.”) [When power is being (or has been) restored, the presence detector 213 is arranged to determine whether a power receiver is present/proximal
causing the wirelessly powered appliance to automatically resume the interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether to resume the determined interrupted operation. Agafonov: Paragraph [0084] [As described above.] Agafonov: Paragraph [0087] (“However, in some embodiments the message circuit is arranged to transmit the power restore message to the second communicator over the short range communication channel only if the presence detector 213 has detected the presence of the power receiver. Thus, in some embodiments, the message generator 215 may in some embodiments be arranged to only transmit the power restore message if both a power restoration situation is detected and the presence of the power receiver is detected.”)Agafonov: Paragraph [0122] (“As an example of the described approach, the power transmitter may be arranged to detect that a power supply is restored after an outage.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0139] (“The approaches may advantageously be combined such that if the duration is sufficiently short, the power receiver does not generate a user alert but instead automatically transmits a user action message causing the power transmitter to resume power transfer.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0140] (“The approach may provide improved performance/operation in many scenarios and may for example allow (possibly very) short power interruptions to automatically be recovered from without requiring specific user action.”) [When power is being (or has been) restored, the presence detector 213 is arranged to determine whether a power receiver is present/proximal, and if the power receiver is proximal, restore power, reads on “causing the wirelessly powered appliance to automatically resume the interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether to resume the determined interrupted operation”.]
Regarding claim 8, Agafonov teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Agafonov further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to determine whether to resume the determined interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether the power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance as a result of movement of the wirelessly powered appliance by: determining to resume the determined interrupted operation if the wirelessly powered appliance is determined to not have been in motion when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance; and Agafonov: Paragraphs [0084], [0087], [0122], and [0140] [As described in claim 1.]
determining to not resume the determined interrupted operation if the wirelessly powered appliance is determined to have been in motion when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance. Agafonov: Paragraph [0105] (“In some embodiments, the user action detector 217 is arranged to detect the user action by detecting a sequence of an absence of the second communicator followed by a presence of the second communicator. The user action detector 217 may for example continuously receive data from the presence detector 215 indicating whether a power receiver is detected in the environment or not, and may detect if the power receiver is removed and then replaced on the power transmitter by considering that such an operation would correspond to a detection of a sequence of the power receiver first being present during power restoration, then no power receiver being present, followed by a detection of a power receiver being present. Such a sequence may be considered to be a detection of a suitable user action.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0106] (“If no power receiver is present when the power is being restored, the power transmitter will not initiate any power transfer as there is no power receiver to which to provide power.”)
Regarding claim 9, Agafonov teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Agafonov further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wirelessly powered appliance is a kitchen appliance including at least one electrical load, wherein the at least one electrical load includes an electric motor, a solenoid, a cooling element, or a heating element, and Agafonov: Paragraph [0016] (“The approach may provide advantageous operation for e.g. kitchen appliances where power receiving devices may often be positioned at power transfer positions for extended periods including at times where no power transfer is required or desired.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0060] (“In the example, the power receiver 105 is specifically a power receiver that receives power via the receiver coil 107. However, in other embodiments, the power receiver 105 may comprise a metallic element, such as a metallic heating element, in which case the power transfer signal directly induces eddy currents resulting in a direct heating of the element.”)
wherein the interrupted operation uses the at least one electrical load during performance of the interrupted operation. Agafonov: Paragraphs [0083] [As described in claim 1.] Agafonov: Paragraph [0074] (“In the example, the receiver coil 107 is coupled to a power receiver controller 501 via a capacitor 503 which together with the receiver coil 107 forms an input resonance circuit. Thus, the power transfer may be a resonant power transfer between resonance circuits. In other embodiments, only one, or none, of the power receiver and the power transmitter may utilize a resonance circuit for power transfer.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0075] (“The power receiver controller 501 couples the receiver coil 107 to a load 505 via a switch 507. The power receiver controller 501 includes a power control path which converts the power extracted by the receiver coil 107 into a suitable supply for the load 505. In some embodiments, the power receiver controller 501 may provide a direct power path which simply connects the input resonance circuit to the switch 507 or load 505, i.e. the power path of the power receiver controller 501 may simply be implemented by two wires.”)
Regarding claim 10, Agafonov teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Agafonov further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to determine a duration from when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance, and Agafonov: Paragraph [0083] [As described in claim 1.] Agafonov: Paragraph [0132] (“In particular, in some embodiments, the operation of the power receiver may be dependent on a duration of the power interruption of the power transfer, and thus the operation of the power receiver when receiving the power restore message may depend on the duration/time lapsed since a disruption to the power transfer signal occurred.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0133] (“In some embodiments, the power receiver may determine the duration since a disruption of the power transfer signal occurred.”)
wherein the instructions are configured to determine whether to resume the determined interrupted operation further based at least in part on the determined duration. Agafonov: Paragraph [0134] (“When the supply power is restored to the power transmitter and a power restore message is transmitted to the power receiver, the power receiver may determine a duration since the disruption of the power transfer signal.”) Agafonov: Paragraph [0135] (“In such cases, the duration may be determined and compared to a threshold to determine if the duration exceeds a given time. In other embodiments, the comparison to a threshold may be more implicit. For example, if the duration is sufficiently short for the energy reservoir to only be partially depleted, the duration may be considered to be less than a threshold and otherwise it may be considered to be above. For example, when the power restore message is received, the functionality of the power receiver which is involved in the power restoration process may be powered by e.g. the communication carrier signal. This functionality may e.g. measure a current voltage of a smoothing capacitor of the power path of the power receiver and if the voltage is above a given threshold, it may be determined that the duration is less than a corresponding temporal threshold. If it is below the given threshold, it may be determined that the duration is less than a corresponding temporal threshold.”)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agafonov in view of Mani et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0110532 A1) (“Mani”).
Regarding claim 2, Agafonov teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Agafonov further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more memories … are disposed in the wirelessly powered appliance. Agafonov: Paragraph [0133] (“…the power receiver may start a timer or store a current time (e.g. the power receiver may comprise a clock or have access to time information). This may for example be performed during a time in which the power receiver may be partly powered by an internal energy reservoir, such as a smoothing capacitor. If the interruption is sufficiently long, the energy reservoir may be completely depleted, and the power receiver may be completely switched off. However, if e.g. the time of disruption was stored in non-volatile memory, the information would be retained even if no power is available to the power receiver.”)
However, Agafonov does not expressly teach “one or more processors are disposed in the wireless powered appliance”.
Mani describes providing user interfaces for home appliances. Mani teaches:
wherein … at least one of the one or more processors are disposed in the wirelessly powered appliance.
Mani: Paragraph [0010] (“As disclosed herein, in some embodiments, a method of providing a control user interface at a first home appliance, comprising: at a computing system having one or more processors and memory…”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Agafonov and Mani before them, for at least one of the one or more processors are disposed in the wirelessly powered appliance because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on wireless appliances.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would improve a result of the detection, image capturing, analysis, and conclusions of the multiple appliances may be shared and coordinated to reduce power usage, improve analysis accuracy, reducing response time, and improving overall user experience when interacting with multiple appliances in the same room around the same time. Mani Paragraph [0034]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agafonov in view of Brower et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0287415 A1) (“Browser”).
Regarding claim 3, Agafonov teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Agafonov further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more memories and at least one of the one or more processors are disposed in a wireless power system that supplies wireless power to the wirelessly powered appliance. Agafonov: Paragraph [0083] [As described in claim 1] Agafonov: Paragraph [0069] (“The power transmitter controller 205 is in particular arranged to control the generation of the drive signal by the driver 201, and it can specifically control the power level of the drive signal, and accordingly the level of the generated power transfer signal.”)
However, Agafonov does not expressly teach “at least one of the one or more processors are disposed in a wireless power system that supplies wireless power to the wirelessly powered appliance”. Browser describes inductive power transfer. Browser teaches:
wherein … at least one of the one or more processors are disposed in a wireless power system that supplies wireless power to the wirelessly powered appliance. Browser: Paragraph [0045] (“The power transmitter device 310 includes a transmitter electronic processor 320, a transmitter memory 325, a transmitter transceiver 330, a transmitter control unit 335, and a transmitter coil 340.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Agafonov and Browser before them, for at least one of the one or more processors are disposed in a wireless power system that supplies wireless power to the wirelessly powered appliance because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on wireless appliances.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would provide a wireless mid-range power transfer systems that improve the portability and user accessibility of electrical devices. Additionally, there is a need for wireless mid-range power transfer systems that are sealed and are waterproof. Browser Paragraph [0062]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agafonov in view of Anders et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0155360 A1) (“Anders”).
Regarding claim 7, Agafonov teaches all the claimed features of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Agafonov does not expressly teach the features of claim 7. However, Anders describes tracking scheduled and unscheduled tasks of devices in case of an electrical power outage. Anders teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising non-volatile storage, wherein the instructions are configured to selectively resume the interrupted operation of the wirelessly powered appliance after the unintentional power loss further by storing operational state data for the wirelessly powered appliance during performance of the interrupted operation and prior to the startup of the wirelessly powered appliance, and wherein the instructions are configured to determine the interrupted operation being performed by the wirelessly powered appliance when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance. Anders: Paragraph [0005] (“The method further includes continually recording, by one or more processors of the hub, data regarding the operational state of the electrically powered device using the one or more sensors attached to the electrically powered device. The method further includes tracking, by one or more processors of the hub, progress of one or more tasks associated with the electrically powered device, based on the continual recording of data regarding the operational state of the electrically powered device. The method further includes, upon detecting a power outage followed by a restore of power, identifying, by one or more processors of the hub, an expected activity to resume a task associated with the electrically powered device, based on the tracked progress of the task prior to the power outage.”) Anders: Paragraph [0031] (“As the task progresses, IoT device 118 transmits notifications to IoT task monitor 114 of staging or cycling status as indicated by reference indicator 202. For example, IoT task monitor 114 can receive notifications from one or more configured IoT devices of task monitoring environment 100 and store the real-time status, cycle, or stage for each of the one or more IoT devices.”) Anders: Paragraph [0049] (“For example, IoT task monitor 114 retrieves the last stored state of the reported task from task software 130 and compares it to information received once power is restored from task software 130 and the one or more IoT sensors in IoT device 118.”) Anders: Paragraph [0050] (“In step 508, IoT task monitor 114 restarts the one or more affected tasks of the one or more IoT devices. For example, IoT task monitor 114 can instruct task software 130 to resume the wash cycle for the remaining wash cycle at the moment power was lost. In other example embodiments, IoT task monitor 114 can take the length of time power was lost into consideration when determining to resume the wash cycle. For example, if the wash cycle had only two minutes remaining when IoT device 118 lost power, and the power outage lasted for an hour, IoT task monitor 114 can instruct task software to begin the next cycle in the task (e.g., rinse cycle).”) [Upon detecting a power outage followed by a restore of power, identifying, by one or more processors of the hub, an expected activity to resume a task associated with the electrically powered device, based on the tracked or recorded progress of the task prior to the power outage reads on “selectively resume the interrupted operation of the wirelessly powered appliance after the unintentional power loss further by storing operational state data for the wirelessly powered appliance during performance of the interrupted operation and prior to the startup of the wirelessly powered appliance…by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Agafonov and Anders before them, to selectively resume the interrupted operation of the wirelessly powered appliance after the unintentional power loss further by storing operational state data for the wirelessly powered appliance during performance of the interrupted operation and prior to the startup of the wirelessly powered appliance, and wherein the instructions are configured to determine the interrupted operation being performed by the wirelessly powered appliance when power was lost by the wirelessly powered appliance by accessing the non-volatile storage during startup of the wirelessly powered appliance because the references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and they are focused on wireless appliances.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would provide a process that performs identifying an expected activity to resume a task associated with the electrically powered device, based on the tracked progress of the task prior to the power outage to continue operation after a disrupting event such as a power outage. Anders Paragraphs [0002]-[0004]
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
Pending the non-statutory subject matter rejections, claims 4-6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pending the non-statutory subject matter rejections of claims 12-20 and the rejections under 35 USC 112(d) of claims 13-17, claims 12-20 are allowable over prior art. Regarding independent claims 12 and 18, Agafonov (US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0204569 A1) “Agafonov” describes in Paragraph [0083] “In some embodiments, the power detector 211 may simply detect that a power up process is ongoing and for example the power detector 211 may be implemented as part of a start-up/boot process of a processor that implements functionality of the power transmitter.” Agafonov describes in Paragraph [0133] “…the time of disruption was stored in non-volatile memory, the information would be retained even if no power is available to the power receiver.” Agafonov: Paragraph [0008] “The Wireless Power Consortium has on the basis of the Qi Specification proceeded to develop the Ki Specification (also known as the Cordless Kitchen Specification) which is aimed at providing safe, reliable, and efficient wireless power transfer to kitchen appliances.” Agafonov also describes in Paragraph [0082] “The power transmitter of FIG. 4 specifically further comprises a power detector 211 which is arranged to detect that arranged to detect when the supply power is restored following an outage of the supply power provided to the power transmitter. For example, the power transmitter may typically be arranged to be (semi)permanently coupled to the mains supply. E.g., for a kitchen application where the power transmitter is built into a kitchen work surface to provide power to any power receiver positioned appropriately on the work surface, the power transmitter is typically permanently connected to the mains network such that it is capable of powering a power receiver whenever needed.” Paragraph [0083] provides that “The power detector 211 may detect that power is restored following a power outage. In some embodiments, the power detector 211 may simply detect that a power up process is ongoing and for example the power detector 211 may be implemented as part of a start-up/boot process of a processor that implements functionality of the power transmitter.” Paragraph [0084] describes that “The power transmitter further comprises a presence/proximity detector 213 arranged to detect a presence of the power receiver at restoring of the supply power. Thus, when power is being (or has been) restored, the presence detector 213 is arranged to determine whether a power receiver is present/proximal. The presence detector 213 may specifically detect if a power receiver is present in a suitable configuration for power transfer from the power transmitter to the power receiver to be performed.” In addition, Agafonov describes in Paragraph [0073] “The approach will be described with reference to FIG. 2 which illustrates exemplary elements of the power transmitter 101 of FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 which illustrates exemplary elements of the power receiver 105. In the example, the power transmitter 101 and the power receiver 105 are arranged to detect an interruption in an ongoing power transfer and to safely and securely restart/reinitialize the power transfer operation without performing a full initialization/configuration if this is feasible. Further, the system is arranged to differentiate between situations in which it is appropriate to restart the power transfer and situations in which a new power transfer should be initialized by going through the normal power transfer initialization phase.”
Van Wageningen et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0294219 A1) describes in Paragraph [0181] “For example, the power receiver may comprise a temperature sensor which can measure the temperature of a part of the powered appliance, such as specifically the temperature of the heating element 201. The power receiver may communicate this to the power transmitter via a suitable communication channel (as e.g. specified for Qi power transfer systems). However, the response time for such an operation is typically relatively high and introduces a substantial delay before the system reacts to the overheating.”
However, Agafonov and Van Wageningen, in combination with other prior art of record, fail to expressly teach “determining whether to resume the determined interrupted operation based at least in part on the determined temperature; and causing the wirelessly powered appliance to automatically resume the interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether to resume the determined interrupted operation”, as recited in independent claim 12.
Further, Agafonov and Van Wageningen, individually or combined along with other prior art, fail to expressly teach “determining whether the power loss was a result of a fault in a wireless power transmitter that supplies power to the wirelessly powered appliance; determining whether to resume the determined interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether the power loss was the result of a fault in the wireless power transmitter; and causing the wirelessly powered appliance to automatically resume the interrupted operation based at least in part on the determination of whether to resume the determined interrupted operation,” as recited in independent claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 2025/0192621 A1 to Park describes in paragraph [0114] “In the ‘Power Tool and Kitchen’ profiles, NFC communication may be employed between the wireless power transmitter and receiver. The wireless power transmitter and receiver may confirm that each of them is an NFC device by exchanging a WPC NFC data exchange profile format (NDEF). For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, the WPC NDEF may include an application profile field (e.g., IB), a version field (e.g., IB), and profile-specific data (e.g., IB). The application profile field indicates whether the corresponding device is one of the following profiles: i) Mobile and Computing, ii) Power Tool, and iii) Kitchen. The upper nibble of the version field indicates the major version, and the lower nibble of the version field indicates the minor version. Also, the profile specific data defines contents for kitchen.”
US Patent Publication No. 2024/0380252 A1 to Ganesh et al. describes systems, methods and apparatuses for a wireless power transmission apparatus to detect a fault of the wireless power reception apparatus. Various implementations relate generally to fault detection and mitigation in a wireless power system. In some aspects, a transmission (TX) controller of the wireless power transmission apparatus can detect a fault in the wireless power reception apparatus based on power transfer measurements or calculations in the wireless power transmission apparatus. The techniques may enable the wireless power transmission apparatus to detect faults such as an open circuit in the wireless power reception apparatus or a thermostat failure, among other examples. During the transmission of wireless power, the wireless power transmission apparatus may detect the fault and cease the transmission of wireless power.
Tang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0281878 A1) describes e or more devices and/or appliances in the client-side kitchen area includes a respective digital assistant (DA) client, and a DA server is executed on the server system 108. Each device 124 that includes an audio input interface (e.g., a microphone) can serve as a voice input endpoint device for the digital assistant, and captures voice inputs uttered by a user. The user can move about the smart kitchen environment 122, and multiple devices 124 that are located in the vicinity of the user can capture the same voice input, and independently transmit the voice input to the server system 108 through their own communication channels to the digital assistant server. The DA client provides client-side functionalities such as user-facing input and output processing and communications with the DA server 106. The DA server 106 provides server-side functionalities for any number of DA clients each residing on a respective user device 104 (e.g., user devices registered for a household account) and/or a respective kitchen appliance 124. The user can speak directly to the DA client on a respective user device or kitchen appliance to interact with the digital assistant on the server system 108.
Meusburger et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0052515 A1) describe restarting an appliance after a power supply interruption. A controller regularly communicates an operating status of the appliance and a power supply to a server which can send a restart command after a power supply interruption. The restart command is only communicated if the interrupt time was less than a time predetermined to be safe for restarting the appliance. Upon receiving the restart command, the controller restarts the appliance according to its most recently communicated operating status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M. CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1473. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA M. CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117