DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 23, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
Mi discloses:
In regard to Claim 1. (Original)
An inductive power transfer transmitter (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX) comprising: an inverter sub-circuit comprising at least one inverter (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. S1-S4), and a tuned circuit comprising a plurality of components (Fig. 1 Items 23 and 24) including at least: a transmitting coil (Fig. 1 Item 24) a first tuning network (Fig. 1 Item 23) comprising: an inductor (Fig. 1 Item Lf1), and a capacitor (Fig. 1 Item Cf1) a second tuning network comprising a first additional component (Fig. 1 Item C1) wherein the plurality of components (Fig. 1 Items 23 and 24) are arranged such that the tuned circuit can: vary current through the transmitting coil (Fig. 1 Item 24) to compensate for variations in K coefficient (Fig. 1 Items C.2, 22, 23, 24, 25 Formulas 22-27 and Cols. 1 and 2 Lines 45-21) provide an output current from the inverter sub-circuit independent of a transmitting coil current (Fig. 1 Items 10, 12 i.e. structurally identical to Applicants Fig. 6C thereby capable of producing the same outcome).
Claim 2. (Cancelled).
In regard to Claim 3. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX) according to claim 1
In regard to Claim 4. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX) according to claim 1 wherein there is reduced current output from the inverter sub-circuit as a result of the two tuning networks that decouple the inverter from the transmitter coil (Fig. 1 Items Lf1 and Cf1 i.e. providing a filtering).
In regard to Claim 5. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1 (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX) wherein there is reduced power loss in the inverter sub- circuit (Fig. 1 Items C.2, 22, 23, 24, 25 & Col. 8 Lines 23-41).
In regard to Claim 6. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1 (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX) wherein the tuned circuit further comprises at least one further additional component to improve power factor of power supplied from the inverter sub-circuit to the transmitting coil (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Items -m1, m1 or lm).
In regard to Claim 9. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1 are arranged in the tuned circuit to provide filtering (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Items c1, m1 or lm).
In regard to Claim 10. (Original)
An inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 9 wherein the tuned circuit can filter out harmonics in the output current from the inverter sub-circuit to improve EMI performance (Fig. 1 Items 23 and 24 and Col. 9 Lines 31-49).
In regard to Claim 23. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1, wherein the first tuning network further comprises a second inductor (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Items -m1, m1 or lm), the second inductor is located at the output of the inverter sub-circuit (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Item 12), the second inductor (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Items -m1, m1 or lm) located on a branch separate to the first inductor branch (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Item Lf1).
Claims 24 - 26. (Cancelled).
Claim 28 - 30. (Cancelled)
Claims 32-38(Cancelled).
In regard to Claim 39. (Previously Presented)
An inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1 wherein one or more of:" the first inductor " the second inductor " the capacitor " the first additional component " the second additional component " the third additional component are tunable or fixed in any combination (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Items C1, Cf1, Lf1 i.e. fixed or variable).
Claims 40 - 42 (Cancelled).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777) in view of Nesgaard (US 2019/0363580).
In regard to Claim 7. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 6
However, Mi is vague in its disclosure of the one further additional component being a variable component to vary the power factor .
Nesgaard teaches the use of additional tunable elements (Figs. 1C, and 2C Items 110 & 230 & Par. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the known teaching of Nesgaard (Par. [0059] i.e. known in the art ) with the known wireless power transfer system of Mi as doing so would have yielded the predictable outcome of an increase in power transfer efficiency (Figs. 1C, and 2C Items 110 & 230 & Par. [0055]).
In regard to Claim 8. (Original)
Modified Mi further discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 7 wherein the variable component is a variable capacitor and/or a variable inductor (Figs. 1C, and 2C Items 110 & 230 & Par. [0055]).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777) in view of Nesgaard (US 2019/0363580).
In regard to Claim 11. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1
However, Mi is vague in its disclosure of the tuned circuit comprising a variable component that is a variable to vary the portion of current through transmitting coil.
Nesgaard teaches the use of additional tunable elements (Figs. 1C, and 2C Items 110 & 230 & Par. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the known teaching of Nesgaard (Par. [0059] i.e. known in the art ) with the known wireless power transfer system of Mi as doing so would have yielded the predictable outcome of an increase in power transfer efficiency (Figs. 1C, and 2C Items 110 & 230 & Par. [0055]).
In regard to Claim 12. (Original)
Modified Mi further discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 11 wherein the variable component is a variable capacitor and/or a variable inductor (Figs. 1C, and 2C Items 110 & 230 & Par. [0055]).
Claim(s) 13-16 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 13. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1, including the transmitting coil (Fig. 1 Item 24), the inductor (Fig. 1 Item lf1), the capacitor (Fig. 1 Item C1 or Cf1), and the first additional component (Fig. 1 Item C1 or Cf1).
However, Mi is vague in its disclosure of all of these components being placed on a separate branch of the tuned circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to Claim 14. (Original)
Modified Mi further discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 13, wherein the inductor (Fig. 1 Item lf1) is placed at the output of the inverter sub-circuit (Fig. 1 Items 12 & lf1).
In regard to Claim 15. (Original)
Modified Mi further discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 13, wherein the capacitor (Fig. 1 Items C1 or Cf1) is placed at the output of the inverter sub-circuit (Fig. 1 Items 12, C1 or Cf1).
In regard to Claim 16. (Previously Presented)
Modified Mi further discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 13, wherein the branch the capacitor (Fig. 1 Items C1 or Cf1) is located on intersects with the branch that the inductor is located on (Fig. 1 Items lf1 and Cf1).
In regard to Claim 31. (Previously Presented)
Modified Mi further discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 13, including the tuned circuit further comprising a second additional component (Figs, 1, 2 & 16 Items -m1, m1 or lm).
However, modified Mi is vague in its disclosure of the specific arrangement wherein, the second additional component is located on a branch that intersects with the branch that the capacitor is located on; the second additional component is located on a branch that intersects with the branch that the inductor is located on; and/or- the branch the first additional component is located on intersects with the branch that the second additional component is located on.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 17. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1
However, Mi is vague in its disclosure of all of these components being connected in parallel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 18. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1
However, Mi is vague in its disclosure of all of these components being connected in parallel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 19. (Currently Amended)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of components are arranged on the tuned circuit such that the tuned circuit can be remodeled as if the transmitting coil is series tuned so that the tuned circuit can vary current through the transmitting coil to compensate for variations in K coefficient (Fig. 1 and Col. 2 Lines 45-67 i.e. known different topologies).
However Mi is vague in its disclosure of the circuit being arranged in multiple topologies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 20. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1 (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX), including the first (Fig. 1 Item 23)and second (Fig. 1 Item C1) tuning networks while comprising one or more components (Fig. 1 Item Cf1), optionally parallel to the transmitting coil (Fig. 1 Item 24), to decouple the inverter (Fig. 1 Item 12) from the transmitter coil (Fig. 1 Item 24).
However Mi is vague in its disclosure of the circuit being arranged according to a Norton and Thevenin equivalent of a series tuned circuit to vary current through a transmitting coil to compensate for variations in K coefficient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 21. (Currently Amended)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 1 (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX), including the first (Fig. 1 Item 23)and second (Fig. 1 Item C1) tuning networks while comprising one or more components (Fig. 1 Item Cf1), optionally parallel to the transmitting coil (Fig. 1 Item 24), to decouple the inverter (Fig. 1 Item 12) from the transmitter coil (Fig. 1 Item 24).
However Mi is vague in its disclosure of the tuned circuit being remodeled by: applying Norton's theorem to transform a series connection of a voltage source (provided by the voltage of the inverter sub-circuit), the inductor and the capacitor into a parallel connection of a current source, the inductor and the capacitor, for creating an appearance of the first tuning network providing a current source for the transmitting coil, and applying Thevenin's theorem to transform a parallel connection of the current source, the first additional component, and the transmitting coil into a series connection of a voltage source, the first additional component and the transmitting coil, such that the transmitting coil appears series tuned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have arranged these known components in this known circuit arrangement since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to Claim 22 (Original)
Modified Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter according to claim 21, wherein the inductor and capacitor each have an absolute reactance.
However, Modified Mi is vague in its disclosure that that the absolute reactance of the inductor is substantially the same as the absolute reactance of the capacitor such that the combined impedance of the inductor and capacitor creates an appearance of an open circuit component so that the first tuning network appears to provide the current source to the transmitting coil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have selected the optimum value for the inductor and the capacitor to be substantially the same since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only rotui9ne skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 9,789,777).
In regard to Claim 27. (Previously Presented)
Mi discloses an inductive power transfer transmitter (Fig. 1 Item 12 i.e. send unit/TX) according to claim 1including the first tuning network (Fig. 1 Item 23).
However, Mi is vague in its disclosure of wherein the first tuning network further comprises a second capacitor, the second capacitor is located at the output of the inverter sub-circuit, the second capacitor located on a branch separate to the first capacitor branch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have included a second capacitor located within the first tuning network since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 23 and 39 is novel over the Mi Reference. Specifically that the Mi reference first does not disclose “a first and second tuning network”, and second that the Mi reference does not disclose “varying the current through the transmitting coil to compensate for variations in K coefficient”. Examiner disagrees with both of these arguments for the following reasons. First Examiner has interpreted the word network, as “an area, segment, or portion of the interconnected system”. Based upon this interpretation Examiner has clarified the rejection of claim 1 above, defining the first tuning network, as well as the additional component that defines the second tuning network. Second Examiner has interpreted the word “can” of claim 1 as “capable of” seeing as the word “can” does not definitively claim its’ following limitation; specifically that of varying “current through the transmitting coil to compensate for variations in K coefficient”. As a result of this broad interpretation of the claim language as presented by Applicant, Examiner has illustrated above as well as within Applicant’s own arguments how the MI reference is capable of varying current through the transmitting coil to compensate for variations in K coefficient. For these Reasons Examiner will be maintaining the rejection of claims 1, 3-23, 27, 31, and 39.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARMFLASH whose telephone number is (571)270-1434. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM EST M-Th.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MW
1/7/2026
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836