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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to label the element boxes in Figs. 1-2 and 5-6. Without some indication as to the content of the boxes (or preferably symbols of the actual elements) it is not clear as to what the elements are and they are not explanatory to a reader as a quick method of determining the general background of the invention. See MPEP 608.02 and 37 CFR 1.84 (o) -- Legends
Suitable descriptive legends may be used, or may be required by the Examiner, where necessary for understanding of the drawing, subject to approval by the Office. They should contain as few words as possible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “foreign conductive object” in claims 1, 5-7 and 11-12; “reporting device” in claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-12; “article” in claims 1-3, 8 and 11-12; “impedance blocker” in claim 7; and “impedance controlled circuit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The specification states the reporting device comprises a device equipped with two conductive electrodes in Page 1, Lines 21-22; and the article comprises a communication device such as a laptop in Page 2, Lines 1-4. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations, found in claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-12, “reporting device”, “impedance blocker” and “impedance-controlled circuit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses the “reporting device” is a device equipped with two conductive electrodes. The use of the term “device” is not adequate structure for performing the reporting because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which device structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 3, 5-6 and 8-10 depend from claim 1 and are rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons as identified above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the charge of the article is not stopped while the charging surface is disconnected.”, in Lines 3-4.
It is unclear how the article keeps receiving charge when a charging surface is disconnected.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. (FP 7.34.23).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 11-12 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of reporting, impedance blocking and impedance controlled. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. (FP 7.31.01).
Claims 3, 5-6 and 8-10 depend from claim 1 and are rejected under 112(a) for the same reasons as identified above.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “a curve of a RC-type circuit is interpolated based on the voltage temporal evolution across the negative charging surface, an equivalent resistance of the foreign conductive object being derived from the curve in the permanent regime of the curve, an equivalent capacitance of the foreign conductive object being derived from the curve in the transient regime of the curve” in Lines 2-7.
The specification does not sufficiently describe the claimed subject matter. The specification discloses in Page 10, Lines 4-5 that the negative voltage curve can be interpolated so as to match the capacitor voltage step response of a RC circuit. The specification does not describe how the derivations of the equivalences are achieved. The steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “impedance blocker” in Lines 2 and 4. The specification discloses the impedance blocker disconnects the downstream circuit during the determined impedance state in Page 9, Lines 2-3. The specification does not disclose any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the blocking/disconnection. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which blocking structures perform(s) the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uramoto et al. (US 2018/0048191) in view of Lollo et al. (US 2018/0262028).
Claims 1 and 12: Uramoto teaches detecting the presence of a foreign conductive object (X) (Fig.2) on at least two charging surfaces (14A-14B) of a charging device (1) (Par.34), the charging device (1) being configured to provide a supply signal (130) to one of the charging surfaces (Par.31), referred to as positive charging surface, and to connect the other charging surface, referred to as negative charging surface, to ground, the supply signal having a potential which is higher than the potential of the ground (Par.36), the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing an appropriate power to the conductive charging surfaces so as to charge an article (Par.51);
b) while providing said appropriate power, putting the negative charging surface in a determined impedance state, applying a determined voltage source on the positive charging surface, and measuring a voltage temporal evolution across one of said charging surfaces while the negative charging surface is put in said determined impedance state (Par.49 and 51); the presence of the foreign conductive object being determined based on said measure (Par.49 and 51).
Uramoto does not explicitly teach said charging surfaces being configured to cooperate with a reporting device equipped with at least two power terminals so as to have a contact between the reporting device's power terminals and at least two charging device's charging surfaces; charge an article connected to the reporting device.
Lollo teaches at least two charging surfaces (9) (Fig.2) of a charging device (2) (Par.83), said charging surfaces (9) being configured to cooperate with a reporting device (3) equipped with at least two power terminals (B1-B2) so as to have a contact between the reporting device's power terminals (B1-B2) and at least two charging device's charging surfaces (9) (Par.80); providing an appropriate power to the conductive surfaces (9) so as to charge an article (4) connected to the reporting device (3) (Par.142 and 146-147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lollo in the system of Uramoto to have had a more effective charging (Par.20); and have had adapted multiple devices from multiple users to be able to be charged by the charging device comprising the at least two charging surfaces (Par.151) thereby expanding the system’s usability.
Claim 5: Uramoto in view of Lollo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Uramoto comprising a preliminary calibration step of measuring a calibration voltage temporal evolution across said charging surfaces while one of said charging surfaces is put in said determined impedance state without any foreign conductive object (Fig.5A; No object present), the presence of the foreign conductive object (X) being determined in step b) based on a comparison of the voltage temporal evolution with regards to the calibration voltage temporal evolution (Par.48-49).
Claim 9: Uramoto in view of Lollo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Uramoto teaches wherein the determined impedance state is a high impedance state (Par.49; Substantially infinite).
Claim 10: Uramoto in view of Lollo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. Uramoto teaches a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions to cause a computer system (microcomputer) to carry out the method (Par.39).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uramoto et al. (US 2018/0048191) in view of Lollo et al. (US 2018/0262028) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2012/0161531).
Claims 2-4: Uramoto in view of Lollo teach the limitations of claim 1 as disclosed above. The combination of Uramoto in view of Lollo does not explicitly teach further comprising: while charging said article, modifying predefined power supply requirements of the article by putting the negative charging surface in another determined impedance state, the reporting device modifying its impedance towards the power terminals, the modification of the impedance depending on the power supply requirements to be modified; comprising determining a power supply information of the article based on said voltage temporal evolution across the charging surfaces; wherein the modification of the impedance of the reporting device towards the power terminals is implemented according to a predefined sequence.
Kim teaches while charging an article (160), modifying predefined power supply requirements of the article (160) by putting a negative charging surface in another determined impedance state, a reporting device (140) modifying its impedance towards power terminals, the modification of the impedance depending on the power supply requirements to be modified (Par.58 and 78); comprising determining a power supply information of the article (160) (Par.89) based on said voltage temporal evolution across the charging surfaces (Par.58); wherein the modification of the impedance of the reporting device (140) towards the power terminals is implemented according to a predefined sequence (Par.55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Kim in the combination of Uramoto in view of Lollo to have had transmitted information used to control the wireless power from the article to the charging device (Par.89) by utilizing load modulation (Par.58) thereby not necessitating a separate communication device, reducing cost and weight of the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uramoto et al. (US 2018/0048191) in view of Lollo et al. (US 2018/0262028) and Cohen et al. (US 2005/0156562).
Claim 11: Uramoto teaches a charging device (1) (Fig.1), comprising: at least two charging surfaces (14A-14B) (Fig.2) (Par.34); the charging device (1) being configured to provide an appropriate power to an article (2) (Par.39), said charging device (1) being configured to put one of said charging surfaces in a determined impedance state while providing said appropriate power (Par.49 and 51), said charging device (1) comprising a voltage measure circuit (voltmeter) to measure a voltage temporal evolution across said charging surfaces (14A-14B) while one of said charging surfaces is put in said determined impedance state (Par.48), said charging device (1) being configured to detect the presence of a foreign conductive object (X) on the charging device's charging surfaces (14A-14B) based on said measure (Par.48-49).
Uramoto does not explicitly teach said charging surfaces being configured to cooperate with a reporting device equipped with at least two power terminals so as to have a contact between the reporting device's power terminals and at least two charging device's charging surfaces; charge an article connected to the reporting device.
Lollo teaches at least two charging surfaces (9) (Fig.2) of a charging device (2) (Par.83), said charging surfaces (9) being configured to cooperate with a reporting device (3) equipped with at least two power terminals (B1-B2) so as to have a contact between the reporting device's power terminals (B1-B2) and at least two charging device's charging surfaces (9) (Par.80); providing an appropriate power to the conductive surfaces (9) so as to charge an article (4) connected to the reporting device (3) (Par.142 and 146-147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lollo in the system of Uramoto to have had a more effective charging (Par.20); and have had adapted multiple devices from multiple users to be able to be charged by the charging device comprising the at least two charging surfaces (Par.151) thereby expanding the system’s usability.
Furthermore, Uramoto does not explicitly teach wherein said charging device further comprises a Thevenin impedance adapter.
Cohen teaches a charging device (Fig.8) comprises a Thevenin impedance adapter (Par.82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Cohen in the system of Uramoto to have had utilized a known impedance value to determine what type of conductive body is coupled to the charging device (Par.82) for accurate detection of conductive body presence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mu et al. (US 2019/0312426) discloses distinguishing between types of foreign objects based on an equivalent resistance and an equivalent capacitance (Par.42) (Fig.1).
Weissinger et al. (US 2018/0358831) discloses charging surfaces (134-135) (Fig.1) of a charging device (130) being configured to cooperate with a reporting device (120) equipped with at least two power terminals (124-125) so as to have a contact with the at least two charging device's charging surfaces (134-135) (Par.16); providing an appropriate power to the conductive surfaces (134-135) so as to charge an article (110) connected to the reporting device (120) (Par.15-16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Julian D 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.
/JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights