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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on March 6, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 recites “an obtaining unit configured to obtain information [] by performing polling a plurality of times…” Similarly, claims 7 and 8 recite “obtaining information [] by performing polling…” The claims recite doing X by doing Y. Thus, the claims are directed to the functionality of Y (performing polling). McFarthing and Hillian both disclose NFC polling and, therefore, completes the same functionality.
Polling is known in the art as a way for the transmitter to initiate communication or pairing with a remote device. The transmitter sends a short signal (polling mode) and then observes the response (listening mode). The lack of a modulated reply is still “information”, as it tells the transmitter something about its proximity. Further, McFarthing explicitly discloses that a passive communication device still provides information (par 22-23).
There is no requirement in the claims that the polling response “necessarily requires an active communication or data response” (Remarks, page 13). The Examiner responds by noting that “active communication” is, at best, a description of what the unclaimed receiver or communication device is doing – while the scope of the claims is limited to the transmitter only. The claim scope does not include “active response generation” or “modulating any response”, as the Applicants contend must be found in the prior art (Id.).
The Applicants contend that “McFarthing does not describe or suggest such an active information-obtaining process, and active response generation.” (Id.). To the contrary, McFarthing explicitly states, “The method 300 starts at step 302 where the wireless charger may be transmitting a low level signal … and is actively detecting for the presence of any device within the charging field.” (par 27; emphasis added). The “active response generation” is not claimed (this is part of the receiver structure/functionality), but McFarthing still discloses it in paragraphs 21 and 30.
That McFarthing can successfully detect the presence of and distinguish the difference between a wireless power receiver (par 17) and a communication device/tag (par 20, 22-23) is evidence that it uses and “obtains” information from both. McFarthing states that a parasitic device “provide[s] a measurable influence on the amplitude and/or phase of the received signal” (par 22; see similar language in par 23). This is clearly the obtaining of information from that device.
The Applicants contend that McFarthing’s information “is directed solely to the device’s charging capability or tolerance, and … [not] regarding identification of the detected object as either (a) ‘a power reception apparatus’ or (b) a different ‘communication apparatus’”. (Remarks, page 14). First, the “identification” information is only present in claim new claim 10 (claim 9 does not define the information, it uses passive language to describe what happens to the information outside the scope of the claim). In other words, the “identification” is not recited in claim 1. Second, “identification” is broad and does not require that the information include the specific labels of “a power reception apparatus” or “communication apparatus”. McFarthing discloses that its transmitter can used sensed amplitude and phase changes to accurate determine the presence of a communication device (par 22-23). McFarthing uses the same amplitude and phase sensing to determine a receiver’s presence and communication (par 17, 21).
Third, the specification only provides written description support for the limitation that the identification information comes from the receiver. There is no support in the specification for any claimed limitation that the communication device (that is not the receiver) also sends an ID. The citations cited to by the Applicants (Remarks, page 15) are clearly directed to the receiver’s ID only. The claim also clearly states, “an obtaining unit configured to obtain information from the power reception apparatus” (claim 1, line 7, emphasis added).
The same analysis applies to claims 7-8.
Hillian was not cited “only against dependent claim 6” (Remarks, page 14). Hillian establishes the plurality of NFC communication methods that the Applicants do not dispute (Remarks, page 12).
Regarding new claims 11-12, the hypothetical “if a response is obtained” does not explicitly incorporate any “active” polling response into the claim. The claims are directed to the transmitter receiving/obtaining information – not to how any receiver/device encodes that information. The receiver/device are not claimed. As discussed above, McFarthing uses sensed changes in amplitude and phase of the received signal to “obtain” a response from a parasitic/communication device (i.e. that is not the receiver and could be damaged by wireless power transfer).
The Applicants do not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims. The art rejections are maintained.
The Applicants should note the extreme breadth of claim 1. Namely that the obtained information “is used for determining whether an [sic] detected object is the power reception apparatus or a communication apparatus” (emphasis added). The underlined is in the passive voice and describes an event that happened to the transmitter outside the scope of the claim – not any distinct structure or functionality that would be included within the scope of the claim. “The ball was hit” is descriptive of something that previously happened to the ball (compare to the active “The racket hits the ball.”). The passive sentence doesn’t inform us how or when the event happened – it could’ve been a baseball bat a month ago. Similarly, “is used” simply tells the reader that the determination is possible – not that it is actually done by the transmitter.
How the transmitter makes the receiver/communication determination appears to be one of the main topics of the Applicants’ specification (see figs 6A-B). But the claim omits any of them. “is used” is not a substitute for discrete functionality. Claims should particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention over which the Applicants are seeking patent protection. 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7-8 are objected to because “an detected object” should be “a detected object” (claim 1, line 10; claim 7, line 8; claim 8, line 10).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarthing (US 2015/0207340) in view of Hillan (US 2013/0143487).
With respect to claim 1, McFarthing discloses a power supply apparatus (fig 1-3; all text) comprising:
a communication unit (par 17-18, 27, 32) that is capable of performing a polling process with a communication method in NF; and
a control unit configured to control wireless power supply to a power reception apparatus (step 306; par 17, 32);
an obtaining unit configured to obtain information from the power reception apparatus (par 17-22) by performing polling (par 17, 22, 30-31, 34), wherein the information is used for determining whether a detected object is the power reception apparatus (par 17-18) or a communication apparatus (par 21-22); and
a detection unit configured to perform detection of the power reception apparatus and the communication apparatus based on at least the information obtained (par 17-23), the communication apparatus being not supplied with power from the power supply apparatus (par 20) and being different from the power reception apparatus (par 20 – the communication apparatus is a parasitic device that would be harmed by the wireless power required by the receiver, they are clearly different),
wherein the control unit is configured to perform control so as to not to transition to a state where power supply to the power reception apparatus is possible, in a case where the power reception apparatus and the communication apparatus are detected (par 31).
McFarthing discloses a wireless power transmitter that can poll for the presence of a receiver and an NFC device (these are clearly two different devices, as shown in figure 1). McFarthing polls for these devices and obtains “information” in response. The information is encoded in the amplitude and phase of the response (fig 2; par 20-22).
McFarthing “obtains” information from the amplitude and phase to detect and distinguish between a wireless power receiver and a communication device that would be harmed by wireless power.
If only the NFC device or both receiver and NFC devices are detected, McFarthing does not supply wireless power (par 31, 33-34). This includes both not beginning the supply of power and stopping any wireless power that was previously provided.
McFarthing discloses performing polling using an NFC method, but does not expressly disclose performing polling in a plurality of NFC methods. Hillan discloses a communication unit that is capable of performing polling in a plurality of NFC methods including type A, type B and type F (par 33). McFarthing and Hillan are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely NFC polling devices. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify McFarthing to poll for three types of NFC technologies, as taught by Hillan. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately ensure that wireless power isn’t sent to a device that would be damaged.
Further motivation would have been the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP §2143(D). McFarthing contains the “base” device, an NFC polling unit. McFarthing does not disclose any specific details about what/how the unit completes its polling. Hillan contains a known technique that is applicable to the base device. Hillan discloses that polling for NFC devices was known to include three specific types of polling. The skilled artisan would have recognized that applying Hillan’s technique to McFarthing would have yielded predictable results – those being detecting type-A, type-B and type-F NFC devices. This would improve on polling for a generic NFC type as taught by McFarthing).
Lastly, the “is used” language is a passive voice phrase that does not impart any distinct structure or functionality into the claim. It is descriptive of something that happened to the transmitter (outside the scope of the claim). “is used” is not the same as reciting discrete determination steps (i.e. see Applicants’ figs 6A-B).
With respect to claim 2, McFarthing discloses the control unit is configured to perform control to transition to the state where the power supply to the power reception apparatus is possible (par 30, 34), in a case where the power reception apparatus is detected and the communication apparatus is not detected. The purpose of the McFarthing disclosure is to send wireless power to the chargeable receivers. Power is only denied if a non-chargeable device (a parasitic metal or an NFC device that could be damaged) enters the field.
With respect to claim 3, McFarthing (modified by Hillian) discloses
the control unit is configured to perform control so as to perform first processing for detecting the power reception apparatus (104; steps 302, 304; par 17, 27, 30, 32) and second processing for detecting the communication apparatus (120; par 22, 31, 34) by performing the plurality of polling processes with the plurality of communication methods in NFC (Hillian par 33), and
wherein the control unit configured to perform control to perform the second processing again in a case where the power supply to the power reception apparatus is not started (fig 3, arrow from 304 back to 302; see also par 27, “The charger may also from time to time transmit polling signals…”), and transition to the state where the power supply to the power reception apparatus is possible in a case where the power reception apparatus is detected in the first processing and the communication apparatus is not detected after the second processing is performed again (par 32).
McFarthing (par 17) discloses that two different “processings” are used to detect the two objects. Namely, McFarthing teaches the first processing in step 302 and paragraphs 17 and 27-29. Paragraph 17 states, “a method according to embodiments of the invention to detect the presence of a parasitic object could be used to detect the presence of a potential device and then the charter could try to initiate a charging session.” And paragraph 29 discloses that there are communication interactions that could be included in step 302 that are not shown in the figure.
Next, McFarthing teaches the second processing in step 304 and paragraphs 30-34. Paragraph 17 states, “In some embodiments, further communications between the charger and the device to be charged could establish further information such as … whether the device as capable of being charged…” (emphasis added). This, coupled with the fact that step 304 is a distinct step from 302, shows that McFarthing has a second distinct “processing” from the first (1 detect receiver, 2 determine if it is an incompatible NFC device).
Through multiple replies, the Applicants have not disputed this interpretation. Their summary of McFarthing indicates that they agree with the two-step process (Remarks 8/12/25, page 10; Remarks 12/29/25, page 10).
McFarthing discloses that the second processing is completed multiple times (par 34). This includes the situation in which the transmitter is sending wireless power to a receiver and then detects a newly arrived NFC device. This indicates that an NFC device is intended to be introduced multiple times during the lifetime of the system, thereby teaching the limitation of performing the second processing “again”.
With respect to claim 4, modified McFarthing (to have all three polling methods) discloses the control unit is configured to perform the second processing by performing the plurality of polling processes with the plurality of NFC communication methods (Hillian par 33) in a case where a power supply request is received from the power reception apparatus detected in the first processing (McFarthing par 17, 27, 32-35). The combination’s three-method polling is carried out in step 302. This would occur both “in a case where” there is no receiver and “in a case where” there is a receiver (par 27 – the polling invites a response from the receiver) and a “new” parasitic device.
With respect to claim 5, a slightly different interpretation is made for the McFarthing claim 3 “first” and “second processing. The first processing is interpreted as a first iteration of steps 302-304. If nothing is found, a second processing is carried out (a second iteration of steps 302-304). Using this interpretation, McFarthing discloses in a case where a power supply request is received from the power reception apparatus detected in the first processing and power requested as per the power supply request is within a predetermined value, the control unit is configured to perform control not to perform the second processing (a YES in step 304 proceeds to step 306 and negates the need to repeat 302-304 – this YES is interpreted as “in a case where a power supply request [] is within a predetermined value”).
This interpretation of McFarthing was presented during prosecution of the grandparent application (16/516,417). The Applicants disagreed that performing multiple iterations of steps 302-304 satisfied “first” and “second” processing – so the claims were amended to recite that the second processing using a different communication standard than the first. No such language appears in the pending claims of this application and, thus, such a feature is not required to be found in the cited references. Throughout prosecution of this application, the Applicants have not disputed this multiple-iteration interpretation (see Remarks filed 4/11/25, 8/12/25, 9/29/25).
With respect to claims 7-8, McFarthing and Hillan combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps (claim 7) and conduct an automated computer program (claim 8), and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, McFarthing discloses the information is used for identifying the power reception apparatus and the communication apparatus (par 17, 20-22). “is used” is passive and refers to an event that happened to the transmitter – not to any distinct structure or functionality that the transmitter has/takes.
With respect to claim 10, McFarthing discloses the information is identification information (fig 2; par 20, 34-35). McFarthing discloses the information is part of two-way communication between transmitter and receiver and that the transmitter can support two receivers (par 34). With two receivers, the McFarthing transmitter is able to know to which it is communicating. This is evidence of “identification” information. The information does not have to be a discrete name/number – it could be the amount of amplitude/phase shift (see fig 2) that occurs during communication.
With respect to claims 11-12, McFarthing and Hillian combine to disclose the power supply apparatus and method, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. The phrase “if a response is obtained” is taught by McFarthing paragraphs 20-22. As discussed above, even a passive NFC device has impedance that is detectable by the transmitter. This informs the transmitter that an NFC device (that could be harmed by wireless power) is present in the field. It is a “response” because the transmitter sent out a polling signal and observed the results/reactions. It is “obtained” because the McFarthing transmitter is actively sensing amplitude and phase during the polling.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarthing in view of Hillan and Lee (US 2014/036738).
McFarthing and Hillan combine to disclose the detection of the NFC device, but do not expressly disclose a notification unit. Lee discloses that it is known to include a notification unit in a wireless power transmitter to inform users about faults (par 122). Within either combination, this “fault” would be equivalent to McFarthing’s (or Yuk’s) inability to transmit power because doing so would damage a device in the vicinity.
It is also noted that the claim only broadly recites the name of the notification unit; it does not define what it is (light, sound, display) or who/what is being notified. It may be possible to interpret any “NO” in McFarthing’s figure 3 (or the YES in “NFC card detection?” in Yuk fig 19) of being a “notification” to the next element in the flowchart. This interpretation was made multiple times throughout prosecution of the parent application, but has not been addressed or rebutted. Thus, it is presumed to be correct.
McFarthing and Lee are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify McFarthing (or Yuk) to include a notification unit, as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the user of the status of the system they are using. A user operating McFarthing’s system (or Yuk’s) would be doing so because they intend to transfer wireless power to a receiver. If this isn’t possible, then the skilled artisan would have considered a feedback mechanism to notify the user of a possible error so they can diagnose/correct the problem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights