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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/05/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The copies of the 3 foreign patent documents listed in IDS filed on 12/05/2023 are not included.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, applicant is advised to spell out “SCR”.
Regarding claim 7, applicant is advised to spell out “S-R” and “CMOS”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 8 – 10, 12, 14 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al. US 2025/0293553 (hereinafter Ganesh) in view of Pettersson et al. US 2022/0352927 (hereinafter Pettersson).
Regarding claim 1, Ganesh teaches: a power circuit with near field communication (NFC) using resonant power transmission to power an appliance (Fig. 1, [0060] - - NFC), the power circuit comprising:
a relay to selectively couple or decouple a load for the appliance (Fig. 3, [0051] - - protective switch);
an NFC circuit comprises a data communication circuit for receiving data ([0060] - - NFC);
a power supply harvesting the resonant power transmission to the appliance ([0052]-[0055] - - power receiver supplies power to the load);
a latching circuit that controls the relay to couple the power supply to the load when the data communication circuit detects wireless communication to the appliance ([0053] - - “the PRx controller 128 may cause the switch 350 to connect the secondary coil 120 to the rectifier 126 ( or the load 130) according to a transition from a connected phase to a power transfer phase.” This teaches a latching circuit. [0060]-[0062] - - after communicating with the power transmitter, the system goes to power transfer phase, this teaches “detects wireless communication”), wherein:
the latching circuit decouples the power supply to the load if the appliance is disconnected ([0059] - - “the WPT system can transition back to the idle phase 610 from any of the other phases (the configuration phase 620, the connected phase 630, or the power transfer phase 640), such as when a power receiver is removed from the interface surface,” “power receiver is removed from the interface surface” maps to the appliance is disconnected; “transition back to the idle phase” maps to “decouples the power supply to the load”),
the decoupling is delayed after disconnection ([0079] - - the PRx may wait for a period of time before disabling the secondary coil),
power from the NFC circuit ([0052] - - harvest energy from wireless communication signal which is NFC signal).
But Ganesh does not explicitly teach: the delay is enabled with power from the NFC circuit.
However, Pettersson teaches: a delay is enabled with power from the NFC circuit ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit creates a delay; accumulates the electrical charge received from the NFC circuit).
Ganesh and Pettersson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to NFC system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above circuit, as taught by Ganesh, and incorporating enabling a delay with power from NFC circuit, as taught by Pettersson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid unintentional triggering, as suggested by Pettersson ([0039]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the relay decouples the load if the appliance does not follow a communication protocol ([0061] - - verify that both transmitter and receiver use compatible protocol).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettersson further teaches: the delay is caused by a capacitor that charged through a resistor from a power harvested from the NFC circuit ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit, accumulates the electrical charge which is received from the NFC-interface circuit).
Ganesh and Pettersson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the delay that holds closed the relay during a transition from a powered state to a connected state ([0079] - - the PRx may wait for a period of time before disabling the secondary coil; [0078] - -transition out of power transfer phase).
Pettersson further teaches: a delay is caused by a storage element ([0040] - - capacitor is a storage element).
Ganesh and Pettersson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the latching circuit can be an SCR switch controlled by a microcontroller unit ([0040] - - rectifier).
Regarding claim 8, Ganesh teaches: method for power delivery using resonant power transmission to power an appliance utilizing near field communication (NFC), the method comprising:
selectively decoupling a load for the appliance with a relay (Fig. 3, [0051] - - protective switch);
receiving data with a communication circuit in an NFC circuit ([0060] - - NFC);
detecting presence of a power transmitter ([0060]-[0062] - - after communicating with the power transmitter, the system goes to power transfer phase; communicating is detecting a power transmitter);
in response to detecting a power transmitter, controlling the relay by a latching circuit and hold the relay close during the resonant power transmission, ([0053] - - “the PRx controller 128 may cause the switch 350 to connect the secondary coil 120 to the rectifier 126 ( or the load 130) according to a transition from a connected phase to a power transfer phase.” [0060]-[0062] - - after communicating with the power transmitter, the system goes to power transfer phase), wherein:
wherein decoupling is delayed ([0079] - - the PRx may wait for a period of time before disabling the secondary coil),
providing power by the storage element to the relay, wherein: the power is harvested from a resonant power transmission to the appliance (Fig.3, [0040] - - capacitor 162 is a storage element; [0044] - - transfer of wireless power means harvesting resonant power).
But Ganesh does not explicitly teach: delayed as a function of a storage element.
the storage element is energized with power from the NFC circuit.
However, Pettersson teaches: delayed as a function of a storage element ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit creates a delay).
the storage element is energized with power from the NFC circuit ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit creates a delay; accumulates the electrical charge received from the NFC circuit)
Ganesh and Pettersson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to NFC system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Ganesh, and incorporating enabling a delay with power from NFC circuit, as taught by Pettersson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid unintentional triggering, as suggested by Pettersson ([0039]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the relay decouples the load if the appliance does not follow a communication protocol ([0061] - - verify that both transmitter and receiver use compatible protocol).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettersson further teaches: the storage element is a capacitor charged through a resistor from a power harvested from the NFC circuit ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit, accumulates the electrical charge which is received from the NFC-interface circuit).
Ganesh and Pettersson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the latching circuit can be an SCR switch controlled by a microcontroller unit ([0040] - - rectifier).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the communication circuit transmits data including a load impedance and a power level of the appliance ([0061], [0062] - - in configuration phase, transmitter and receiver communicate basic settings, respective capabilities, verify that they use compatible technical specification; [0050] - - power rating is a power level).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: holds closed the relay during a transition of the appliance from a connected state to a powered state (Fig. 9 - - enable secondary coil during transition from connected phase to power transfer phase).
Pettersson further teaches: a delay is caused by a storage element ([0040] - - capacitor is a storage element).
Ganesh and Pettersson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 16, Ganesh teaches: a power circuit with near field communication (NFC) using resonant power transmission to power an appliance (Fig. 1, [0060] - - NFC), comprises:
a relay to selectively couple or decouple a load for the appliance (Fig. 3, [0051] - - protective switch);
an NFC circuit comprises a data communication circuit for receiving data ([0060] - - NFC);
a power supply harvesting the resonant power transmission to the appliance ([0052]-[0055] - - power receiver supplies power to the load);
a latching circuit that controls the relay to couple the power supply to the load when the data communication circuit detects wireless communication to the appliance ([0053] - - “the PRx controller 128 may cause the switch 350 to connect the secondary coil 120 to the rectifier 126 ( or the load 130) according to a transition from a connected phase to a power transfer phase.” This teaches a latching circuit. [0060]-[0062] - - after communicating with the power transmitter, the system goes to power transfer phase, this teaches “detects wireless communication”), wherein:
the latching circuit decouples the power supply to the load if the appliance is disconnected ([0059] - - “the WPT system can transition back to the idle phase 610 from any of the other phases (the configuration phase 620, the connected phase 630, or the power transfer phase 640), such as when a power receiver is removed from the interface surface,” “power receiver is removed from the interface surface” maps to the appliance is disconnected; “transition back to the idle phase” maps to “decouples the power supply to the load”),
the decoupling is delayed ([0079] - - the PRx may wait for a period of time before disabling the secondary coil), and
power from the NFC circuit ([0052] - - harvest energy from wireless communication signal which is NFC signal).
But Ganesh does not explicitly teach: delay as a function of a storage element and a bleeder element.
the storage element is energized with power from the NFC circuit.
However, Pettersson teaches: delay as a function of a storage element and a bleeder element ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit creates a delay; capacitor is a storage element, resistor is a bleeder),
the storage element is energized with power from the NFC circuit ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit creates a delay; accumulates the electrical charge received from the NFC circuit)
Ganesh and Pettersson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to NFC system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above circuit, as taught by Ganesh, and incorporating enabling a delay with power from NFC circuit, as taught by Pettersson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to avoid unintentional triggering, as suggested by Pettersson ([0039]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: the relay decouples the load if the appliance does not follow a communication protocol ([0061] - - verify that both transmitter and receiver use compatible protocol).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Pettersson further teaches: the storage element is a capacitor that is energized through a resistor from a power harvested from the NFC circuit ([0040] - - a resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit, accumulates the electrical charge which is received from the NFC-interface circuit).
Ganesh and Pettersson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Ganesh further teaches: closes and holds the relay during a transition from a powered state to a connected state ([0079] - - the PRx may wait for a period of time before disabling the secondary coil; [0078] - -transition out of power transfer phase).
Pettersson further teaches: a delay is caused by a storage element ([0040] - - capacitor is a storage element).
Ganesh and Pettersson are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al. US 2025/0293553 (hereinafter Ganesh) in view of Pettersson et al. US 2022/0352927 (hereinafter Pettersson) and further in view of Peterson et al. US 9,755,456 (hereinafter Peterson).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson does not explicitly teach: a power regulator provides lower voltage than the power supply wherein a resistor at an input of the power regulator discharges capacitance.
However, Peterson teaches: a power regulator provides lower voltage than the power supply wherein a resistor at an input of the power regulator discharges capacitance (Fig. 3, C6, L1-20 - - step-down voltage converter is a power regulator provides lower voltage than the power supply; R1 & R2 are resistors at input, C10 is a capacitor).
Ganesh, Pettersson and Peterson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above circuit, as taught by the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson, and incorporating a power regulator, as taught by Peterson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve conditioning electrical power, as suggested by Peterson (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson does not explicitly teach: a power regulator provides lower voltage than the power wherein a bleeder element discharges the storage element with a plurality of resistors added at an input of the power regulator.
However, Peterson teaches: a power regulator provides lower voltage than the power wherein a bleeder element discharges the storage element with a plurality of resistors added at an input of the power regulator (Fig. 3, C6, L1-20 - - step-down voltage converter is a power regulator provides lower voltage than the power supply; R1 & R2 are resistors at input, C10 is a capacitor which is a storage element).
Ganesh, Pettersson and Peterson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson, and incorporating a power regulator, as taught by Peterson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve conditioning electrical power, as suggested by Peterson (Abstract).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al. US 2025/0293553 (hereinafter Ganesh) in view of Pettersson et al. US 2022/0352927 (hereinafter Pettersson) and further in view of Caruana et al. US 2010/0327945 (hereinafter Caruana).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson does not explicitly teach: the latching circuit can be an S-R latch constructed from a plurality of complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) gates and a small signal transistor.
However, Caruana teaches: the latching circuit can be an S-R latch constructed from a plurality of complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) gates and a small signal transistor (Fig. 3, [0020] - - “A bistable latch B of the SR (Set-Reset) type is connected to the gate of the transistor T”).
Ganesh, Pettersson and Caruana are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above circuit, as taught by the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson, and incorporating a latching circuit being an S-R latch and a transistor, as taught by Caruana.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve switching device, as suggested by Caruana ([0001]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson does not explicitly teach: the latching circuit can be an S-R latch constructed from a plurality of complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) gates and a small signal transistor.
However, Caruana teaches: the latching circuit can be an S-R latch constructed from a plurality of complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) gates and a small signal transistor (Fig. 3, [0020] - - “A bistable latch B of the SR (Set-Reset) type is connected to the gate of the transistor T”).
Ganesh, Pettersson and Caruana are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson, and incorporating a latching circuit being an S-R latch and a transistor, as taught by Caruana.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve switching device, as suggested by Caruana ([0001]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al. US 2025/0293553 (hereinafter Ganesh) in view of Pettersson et al. US 2022/0352927 (hereinafter Pettersson) and further in view of Singh et al. US 2018/0062704 (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson does not explicitly teach: a power regulator provides low voltage wherein the bleeder element is a plurality of resistors that is added at an input of the power regulator to discharge the storage element.
However, Singh teaches: a power regulator provides low voltage wherein the bleeder element is a plurality of resistors that is added at an input of the power regulator to discharge the storage element (Fig. 16, [0071] - - voltage regulator 96, resistors R28 & R29, capacitor C43).
Ganesh, Pettersson and Singh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to power system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above circuit, as taught by the combination of Ganesh and Pettersson, and incorporating a plurality of resistors at an input of a power regulator, as taught by Singh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to adjust the electrical voltage at receiver to supply power DC components, as suggested by Singh ([0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116