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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Park for the "METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING MAXIMUM DATA SIZE ACCORDING TO COMMUNICATION SPEED IN WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM" filed 01/12/2024 has been examined. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2022/010282, International Filing Date: 07/14/2022, and claims foreign priority to 10-2021-0093000, filed 07/15/2021 in Korea. The preliminary amendment filed 01/12/2024 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 11 are objected to because it is unclear how “a specific request (SRQ) related to frequency shift keying (FSK)”. There is no clearly indication in the claims that the method is actually using FSK communication, and it is unclear if the claims are directed to any “FSK” communication. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US#12,046,927) in view of Youn et al. (US#2024/0213817).
Regarding claims 1, 11, the references disclose a system and method for data transmission in wireless power transmission system, according to the essential features of the claims. Choi et al. (US#12,046,927) discloses a method for transferring/receiving a wireless power in a wireless power transfer system (see Fig. 14; Col. 1, lines 17-20), the method performed by a wireless power transmitter /receiver and comprising: receiving/transmitting, from/to a wireless power receiver/transmitter, a specific request (SRQ) packet (Fig. 14, Col. 33, lines 32-37: The wireless power receiver 1002 may use a Specific Request data packet (SRQ) in the negotiation phase or renegotiation phase to update the elements of the power transfer contract) related to frequency shift keying (FSK) (Fig. 14, Col. 33, lines 38-40: In particular, the wireless power receiver 1002 may request a change of characteristic information related to FSK using SRQ), wherein the SRQ packet includes information for a number of cycles used for the FSK (Fig. 15; Col. 33, lines 49-53: The Request field of the SRQ (SRQ/fsk) for requesting a change in the characteristic information related to the FSK may have a value of 0x03, and the Request field may include information on NCyICLES, Polarity, and Depth related to the FSK); transmitting/receiving, to/from the wireless power receiver/transmitter, an ACK for the SRQ packet (Fig. 14; Col. 34, lines 1-3: After receiving the SRQ/fsk, the wireless power transmitter 1001 transmits an ACK to the wireless power receiver 1002 in response to the SRQ/fsk); and transmitting/receiving a data packet to/from the wireless power receiver/ transmitter based on the number of cycles (Fig. 14, Col. 34, lines 1-8: conforms to the information of NCYLCLES, Polarity, and Depth included in the SRQ/fsk. It transmits subsequent data to which FSK is applied)
However, Choi reference does not disclose expressly wherein a maximum size of the data packet is selected based on the number of cycles. In the same field of endeavor, Youn et al. (US#2024/0213817) teaches in Fig. 26 a flowchart illustrated a method for transmitting wireless power, in which the wireless power transmitter may transmit an auxiliary data transport (ADT) packet to the wireless power receiver in the power transfer phase (S2620). The wireless power transmitter may transmit the ADT packet to the wireless power receiver based on Frequency Shift Keying (FSK)(see also Figs. 31-34; para [0469], [0508]-[0543]: the maximum size of the ADT packets is determined on the basis of the number of cycles used in the FSK).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently determining maximum data size in wireless power transmission system, and would have applied Youn’s maximum ADT size in wireless power transfer into Choi’s wireless power transmitter for transmitting wireless power to a wireless power receiver. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Youn’s data transmission method and device in wireless power transmission system into Choi’s wireless power transmitting device and communication method by wireless power transmitting device with the motivation being to provide a method and system for determining maximum data size according to communication speed in wireless power transmission system.
Regarding claims 2, 12, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Choi et al. further teach wherein the wireless power transmitter receives the SRQ packet during a negotiation phase or a renegotiation phase (Fig. 14; Col. 31, lines 55-59 : At S1001 - enter a negotiation phase or a re-negotiation phase, and S1006 wireless power transmitter 1001 receives the SRQ packet), wherein the wireless power transmitter transmits the ACK to the wireless power receiver during the negotiation phase or the renegotiation phase (Fig. 14; Col. : At S1001 - enter a negotiation phase or a re-negotiation phase, and S1007 wireless power transmitter 1001 transmits ACK/NACK to the wireless power receiver 1002).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Choi et al. further teach wherein the wireless power transmitter transmits the data packet to the wireless power receiver during a power transfer phase (Figs. 5-6; Col. : enter power transfer phase 560 from the wireless power transmitter 100 to the wireless power receiver 200).
Regarding claims 4, 14, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Choi et al. further teach wherein the maximum size of the data packet increases as the number of cycles decreases (Col. 35, lines 35-42: the number of cycles per unit bit decreases based on the increase in the modulation level).
Regarding claims 5, 15, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Choi et al. further teach wherein the data packet is an auxiliary data transport (ADT) packet (Fig. 12; Col. 30, lines 24-33: auxiliary data transport (ADT) data packet).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Youn et al. further teach wherein the maximum size of the ADT packet is 27 bytes (Fig. 25; para [0467]-[0469]: the maximum ADT size can be increased to 27 bytes).
Regarding claims 7, 17, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Youn et al. further teach wherein the wireless power transmitter transmits the ADT packet to the wireless power receiver along with a 1-byte header (Figs. 19, 25; para [0419], [0467]).
Regarding claims 8, 18, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Youn et al. further teach wherein the maximum size of the ADT packet supported by the 1-byte header is the 27 bytes (Fig. 25; para [0467]-[0469]: the maximum ADT size can be increased to 27 bytes).
Regarding claims 9, 19, Choi et al. in view of Youn et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 11 as set forth above, Youn et al. further teach wherein the maximum size of the data packet is selected based on a control error (CE) interval (Fig. 17; para [0398], [0581]: the control error packet may be transmitted/received at a constant time interval during the power transfer phase).
Regarding claim 21, this claim differs from claims Choi et al. (US#12,046,927) in view of Youn et al. (US#2024/0213817) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 11 above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Choir in view of Youn for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for providing maximum data size in wireless power transmission system, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Choi et al. (US#12,531,445) is cited to show wireless power transmitting device and communication method by wireless power transmitting device.
The Park (US#12,388,299) shows wireless power reception/transmission device and communication method between wireless power transmission & reception devices.
The Kim et al. (US#11,637,648) shows apparatus and method for supporting changeable communication speed in wireless power transmission system.
The Abukhalaf et al. (US#11,114,903) shows wireless power systems with concurrently active data streams.
The Martchovsky (US#2019/0052117) shows wireless power transmitter to receiver communication during power transfer phase.
The Sherman et al. (US#11,381,281) shows fast data transmission for wireless power transfer systems.
The Taylor et al. (US#10,250,083) showssystem and method for communication in wireless power supply systems.
The Park et al. (US#11,114,898) shows device and method for supporting improved communication speed in wireless power transmission system.
The Kim (US#12,418,203) shows method and device for high-speed data transmission in wireless power transmission system.
The Youn et al. (US#12,348,060) shows method and device for data communication based on FSK in wireless power transmission system.
The Choi et al. (US#2023/0108910) shows wireless power transmitting device and communication method by wireless power transmitting device.
7. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
9. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
02/24/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477