DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “electromagnet” is being interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation which is also the standard definition in the electrical engineering arts, that is, an electrified magnet used to create a localized magnetic field. This definition would not include, for example, an antenna, which also uses electricity to create a magnetic field but is designed to propagate waves rather than electrifying a permanent magnet to control the local field. Given that there appears to be no translation issues in the application base on the use of proper contemporary English terms for the other technical aspects of the invention, the use of the term “electromagnet” appears to be a deliberate choice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boykin et al. US PGPUB 2018/0050800 in view of Bell US PGPUB 2019/0016227.
Regarding claim 1, Boykin discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle charging system [figs. 23-26B] for charging an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising:
a platform [fig. 23, 2204];
a charging assembly [fig. 24B; charging assembly including various alignment markers 2416, electromagnets 218 and a UAV interface 2420 for charging the UAV; pars. 131-132]
charging assembly, disposed on the platform, wherein a first virtual line and a second virtual line pass through the charging assembly, and the first virtual line is substantially perpendicular to the second virtual line [see annotated fig. 24 B below];
a first electromagnet, disposed on the platform [electromagnet 2418; pars. 131-132, see annotated fig. 24 B below],
a second electromagnet, disposed on the platform, wherein the first electromagnet and the second electromagnetic are disposed on opposite sides of the first virtual line [electromagnet 2418; pars. 131-132, see annotated fig. 24 B below]; and
a third electromagnet, disposed on the platform, wherein the second electromagnet and the third electromagnet are disposed on opposite sides of the second virtual line [electromagnet 2418; pars. 131-132, see annotated fig. 24 B below].
PNG
media_image1.png
601
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boykin does not explicitly disclose a wireless charging coil assembly.
However, Bell discloses a vehicle charging system using electromagnets for alignment [fig. 3A-3C; pars. 24-26] wherein the charging assembly is a wireless charging coil assembly [par. 14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boykin to further include a wireless charging coil assembly for the purpose of reducing the number of parts under mechanical stress, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Boykin discloses wherein the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet are controlled [pars. 126 & 132].
Boykin does not explicitly disclose the electromagnets are controlled by pulse-width modulation.
However, Bell further discloses the electromagnets are controlled by modulation [figs. 3A-3C; pars. 24-26; the electromagnets 52 are modulated to present information over the illustrate time frames t1-g3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boykin to further include wherein the electromagnets are controlled by modulation for the purpose of encoding data via the electromagnets, as taught by Bell (par. 5).
The combination of Boykin and Bell does not explicitly disclose the modulation is pulse-width.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the communication arts to use pulse-width communication to modulate data, such as in robotics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bell and Boykin to further include wherein the modulation is pulse-width for the purpose of encoding data via the electromagnets, as taught by Bell (par. 5), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Boykin does not explicitly disclose wherein the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet create magnetic fields with the same frequency.
However, Bell further discloses wherein the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet create magnetic fields with a defined frequency [figs. 3A-3C; pars. 24-26; the electromagnets 52 are changed according to a pattern for encoding information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boykin to further include wherein the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet create magnetic fields with a defined frequency for the purpose of encoding data via the electromagnets, as taught by Bell (par. 5).
The combination of Bell and Boykin does not explicitly disclose using the same frequency.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the communication arts to use the same frequency, like for beacons, for example. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bell and Boykin to further include using the same frequency for the purpose of allowing recognition of the electromagnetic beacons from other magnetic field sources, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boykin to further include wherein the electromagnets are controlled by modulation for the purpose of encoding data via the electromagnets, as taught by Bell (par. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Boykin discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle charging system and the unmanned aerial vehicle [figs. 23-26D; par. 138].
Boykin does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle charging system further comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, and the first sensor and the second sensor are disposed on the vehicle to measure the magnetic field created by the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet.
However, Bell further discloses wherein the vehicle charging system further comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, and the first sensor and the second sensor are disposed on the vehicle to measure the magnetic field created by the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet [par. 14-15; the vehicle is provided with “magnetometers” to measure magnetic fields from the electromagnets (pars. 25-26)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boykin to further include wherein the vehicle charging system further comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, and the first sensor and the second sensor are disposed on the vehicle to measure the magnetic field created by the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet.
for the purpose of reading information encoded in the magnetic fields of the electromagnets, as taught by Bell (pars. 24-26).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boykin et al. US PGPUB 2018/0050800 in view of Bell US PGPUB 2019/0016227, and further in view of Flechi et al. US PGPUB 2024/0017633.
Regarding claim 6, Boykin does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first sensor and the second sensor is a 3D Hall sensor.
However, Flechi discloses vehicle charging system wherein a magnetic sensor used is a 3D Hall sensor [par. 44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boykin to further include wherein each of the first sensor and the second sensor is a 3D Hall sensor for the purpose of providing three-dimensional information on magnetic flux to improve determination of relative position, as taught by Flechi (par. 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-10 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.
With respect to claim 5, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the first sensor is configured to measure magnetic flux in a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction, and the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the platform, the second direction is substantially perpendicular to the first direction, and the third direction is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the second sensor is configured to measure magnetic flux in the first direction and a fourth direction, and the fourth direction is opposite to the second direction” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 5.
With respect to claim 7, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle charging system further comprises a processor and a switch, and the processor is electrically connected to the first sensor, and the switch is electrically connected to the processor and the first sensor, wherein when the density of magnetic flux measured by the first sensor is greater than or equal to a starting value, the switch transmits a signal to the processor, and the processor starts to read a sensing value of the first sensor” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 7.
Claims 8-10, being dependent on claim 7, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Austin US PGPUB 2011/0175569 discloses an electric vehicle charging system with electromagnets placed in a virtual rectangle on the edges of a vehicle charging pad.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights