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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Ishihara, the Applicant raises three issues that have no basis in fact (Remarks, page 7, bottom). They are easily disproved by any cursory review of Ishihara and basic electrical circuitry knowledge.
First, Ishihara explicitly discloses a series capacitor in figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
134
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability…” 37 C.R.F. §1.56(a)(emphasis added). As ones skilled in the art, the Applicant should be aware of what a series circuit looks like and filing transparently false statements about the existence of basic circuit elements does not appear to satisfy this requirement.
No discussion or explanation is provided to support the Applicant’s position that what Ishihara explicitly illustrates in figure 1 does not exist. Also, such an easily disproven statements calls into question the veracity of the Applicant’s remaining arguments and conclusions.
The other two points are also clearly shown in the reference. Ishihara explicitly discloses a control device (item 27) that is clearly labeled in the figures and discussed throughout the document. Further, figure 2 indisputably shows that the capacitor is variable and the control unit adjusts the value to change the resonance frequency (paragraph 22). The Applicant’s positions to the contrary have no merit.
The Examiner notes that the second issue raised also includes the phrase “configured to generate a reverse-phase current”. This is unrelated to the existence of a control device and it is unclear why it is included in this heading (it should be its own numbered heading). Regardless, the Examiner has already presented sufficient evidence to address and rebut this position (see Non-Final 3/2/26, page 3). If the transmitter isn’t claimed, then there is no transmitter current direction to establish a reference point which to compare what is “reverse”. The Applicant has yet to address or rebut this interpretation. Simply repeating a general disagreement does not show any error in the Office’s position.
Regarding Nakao, the Applicant concludes that it “merely discloses that the first characteristic of the impedance has a first resonance point, a second resonance point, and an anti-resonance point.” (Remarks, page 8, emphasis added). It is unclear what the Applicant means by “merely” – this triple peak waveform is the reason why Nakao is cited. It’s control functionality is irrelevant to this agreed upon fact that LC resonance circuits have a triple-peak waveform. The Applicant does not dispute that such a waveform inherently exists in Ishihara.
The Applicant does not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims. While the Applicant addresses each secondary reference, they do not dispute the limitations for which those references are cited or the combination of references. All arguments are directed to claim 1.
The art rejections are maintained. The §112 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 8-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara (US2013/0234527). Nakao (US 2018/0183272) is relied upon to show that a characteristic not disclosed in Ishihara is inherent. MPEP §2131.01(III).
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.
Alternatively, claims 1-2, 7, 8-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Nakao. The Applicant’s remarks (5/29/26, page 8) do not dispute that the Nakao triple-peak waveform is inherently found in Ishihara’s resonance circuit. The §103 rejection is maintained solely because it was previously presented and it is simpler to keep it.
With respect to claim 1, Ishihara discloses a coil unit (fig 2, 5, 7; par 19-25, 31-47) comprising: a resonance circuit (23) mounted on a vehicle (intended use; does not breathe life into the claim) and comprising: an electric power reception coil (21) that receives an AC electric power transmitted in a contactless manner from an electric power transmission device (not claimed) outside the vehicle; and a capacitor (22) connected in series with the electric power reception coil; and
a control device (27, 28) that controls the resonance circuit, wherein
the electric power reception coil is configured to generate, when receiving eh AC electric power, a reverse-phase current with respect to the electric power transmission-side coil (the transmission-side coil is not claimed – there is no basis in the claim for what is “reverse”. The coil is a passive component – Ishihara discloses a “coil” and, therefore, it is “configured to” react in the same way to induce the same type of current as claimed – see also language of claim 16),
the resonance circuit has a first resonance point at a low-frequency side that represents an in-phase resonance mode, a second resonance point at a high-frequency side that represents a reverse-phase resonance mode, and an anti-resonance point that represents a local maximum impedance between the in-phase resonance mode and the reverse-phase resonance mode (these are inherent features of the Ishihara LC resonant circuit – as supported by Nakao fig 1 and 3; par 55-63; figure 1, item 20 shows the series LC resonant circuit; figure 3 shows that it inherently produces the frequency-impedance plot with the three points – the Applicant does not dispute this finding), and
the control device changes a capacitance of the capacitor (fig 2; par 22) and thereby sets a frequency corresponding to the second resonance point among the first resonance point, the second resonance point, and the anti-resonance point to a request frequency required for electric power transmission by the electric power transmission device (fig 5, 6B; par 22, 37-39 – Ishihara conducts a frequency sweep to select the most efficient frequency at RL. This would inherently include the second resonance point in the Nakao figure 3 plot, frequency fp2).
The claim recites two “comprising” transitional phrases. Both indicate that the claims are directed to the coil unit – i.e. the electrical circuitry of the wireless power receiver. The vehicle is interpreted as an intended use limitation. It is only mentioned in passing for what the resonance circuit is mounted to and does not breathe life into the claim. MPEP §2111.02(II). The preamble indicates that the scope of the claim is directed to the coil unit specifically, not the vehicle generally (even if that vehicle may include the coil unit).
The Examiner notes the breadth of the three resonance points. First, the claim simply lists the three resonance points of the LC circuit. The resonance points are inherent in the series LC circuit (see Nakao, fig 3). The inductor and capacitor are passive devices and the only defining structure is that they are in series – any reference that discloses this will necessarily produce a circuit that is “configured to” generate the identified resonance points. Second, the claim does not recite any sensing or circuitry for the control device to know what these frequencies are. Third, the claim only broadly recites that the control device “sets” one of the listed frequencies. There is no indication in the claim of how/why the control device knows to select this specific frequency (the second resonance point).
Ishihara discloses a wireless power receiver with a series LC resonant circuit. The receiver includes a control device that can request frequency changes from the transmitter (par 43) and can change the capacitance to set the resonance frequency (par 22). To determine the requested frequency, Ishihara conducts a frequency sweep (fig 5 and 6B). Ishihara’s control device tests the power received at each frequency to determine the frequency where power transfer is most efficient (RL; par 27-28). Nakao discloses that in an LC series resonant circuit, there are two frequencies at which power transfer is most efficient (fp1, fp2; see par 59).
Thus, by finding the most efficient frequency, Ishihara will inherently arrive at the second resonance point (even if the reference doesn’t mention its existence). This maximum efficient point is inherent in a series LC resonant circuit, as supported by Nakao. This supports an inherency anticipation rejection.
Second, Ishihara is not limited to one specific frequency at RL. Ishihara is interpreted as requesting various frequencies over its lifetime, including fp2. The claim does not explicitly recite how the frequency selection is made – only that it is “set” – and the claim is anticipated by a reference accidentally or coincidentally requesting fp2. This also supports an anticipation rejection.
Third, alternatively, if the Applicant presents evidence that Ishihara RL and Nakao fp2 are not the same frequency (they do not in the subsequently filed remarks), then the following obviousness analysis is presented. The skilled artisan could use the information gleaned from Nakao to modify Ishihara so that it purposefully selects the second resonance point fp2. Ishihara and Nakao are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely series resonant LC circuits with maximum efficiency points. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the Ishihara frequency request to be the second resonance point (fp2) taught by Nakao. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve maximum power transfer, which is a stated goal of both references.
Regarding the alternative obviousness rejection, Ishihara explicitly discloses that the receiver control unit adjusts the capacitance to thereby set the resonance frequency (par 22, 43). Changing the numerical value of the frequency that is requested (to be fp2 instead of RL) would not require any structural modifications to Ishihara. It is an obvious design choice to request a frequency at which power transmission is efficient. This is obvious because the primary reference already discloses the desire to do reach the most efficient frequency (Ishihara par 54). The skilled artisan would have also understood the relationship between frequency, efficiency, and the level of received power. They would have been motivated to set Ishihara to fp2, as is highlighted by Nakao, in order to achieve the associated benefits of highest power transfer efficiency.
Thus, the references also support an obviousness rejection.
With respect to claim 2, Ishihara discloses in a state of looking from a predetermined identical direction, a wind direction of the electric power reception coil is a directly opposite to a wind direction of the (not claimed) electric power transmission-side coil.
As previously discussed, and not addressed or rebutted, the transmitter coil isn’t claimed; therefore, there is no fixed definition of a wind direction from which to determine what is “opposite”. Support for this can also be found in claim 16, which clearly introduces the transmitter as a distinct claimed limitations (meaning that it is not included in claim 1). Further, any changes to the transmitter coil (i.e. to make it in an opposite direction to the receiver coil) would not be a modification of the Ishihara receiver coil. Thus, the anticipation rejection would still apply.
With respect to claims 7 and 10, Ishihara discloses the control device is configured to transmit the request frequency to the electric power transmission device via communication (from 28 to 15; par 44) between the electric power transmission device (transmitter side) and the vehicle (receiver side).
As noted above, the vehicle is an intended use limitation. Since Ishihara’s coil unit transmits the requested frequency, it would come from whatever structure the control device is mounted to (including an unclaimed vehicle).
The physical placement of the Ishihara coil unit on a vehicle is not a modification of the reference. Nor is such an interpretation required to be made in this Action.
With respect to claims 9 and 12, Ishihara discloses the communication between the electric power transmission device and the vehicle is a wireless communication by a communication device (15) provided on the electric power transmission device and a communication device (28) provided on the vehicle.
With respect to claim 14, Ishihara discloses the control device sets a frequency required for electric power transmission by the electric power transmission device on a basis of a minimum ground height of the vehicle and a mounting layout of the electric power reception device in the vehicle.
Ishihara discloses setting a frequency for electric power transmission and the successful transfer of wireless power. Ishihara is interpreted as completing this functionality “based on” the physical dimensions of the system (physical coil offsets, coil distances, etc.). “on the basis of” does not overcome the interpretation that the vehicle is an intended use limitation. Hinting at ground clearances and “a mounting layout” is not a substitute for explicitly reciting the presence of the transmitter or where the coils are located.
With respect to claim 15, Ishihara discloses wherein a frequency characteristic of an impedance in the coil unit has two resonance points (see Nakao fig 3) in accordance with the resonance circuit formed of a secondary side coil, a secondary side resistance, and a secondary side capacitor that are connected in series of the electric power reception device.
Claim 1 defines the resonance circuit of the secondary side as including the coil (L) and series capacitor (C). There is no additional structure. Ishihara discloses this structure and, therefore, anticipates claim 15. The phrase “in accordance with” does not explicitly introduce any additional structure (i.e. “secondary side resistance”). If the Applicant intends to claim narrowing structure (like a resistor), they should properly introduce that structure using the format or, and they have already recognized as appropriate in, claim 1. The Applicant does not dispute these interpretations; therefore, they are presumed to be correct.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Ahn (US 2015/0045227). Alternatively, claims 8 and 11 are unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Nakao and Ahn.
Ishihara discloses the communication, but does not expressly disclose it is “by an inductor voltage”. This language is interpreted as meaning the communication is “in-band”, a common term in the art (it is unclear why the Applicant is only referring to voltage on an unclaimed transmitter side instead of naming the communication protocol or reciting any structure in the receiver that actually creates the data).
Ahn (par 48) discloses a wireless power transmission system that can use either in-band (sensed through voltage changes on the transmitter coil) or out-band (what is disclosed by Ishihara). Ahn does not detail any hardships in changing between the two protocols – thus, the ability to switch one type for the other would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ishihara and Ahn are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power receivers with wireless communication ability. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the out-band communication taught by Ishihara with in-band communication, as taught by Ahn. The motivation for doing so would have been to replace one known type of communication for another, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Nishikawa (US 2017/0063155. Alternatively, claim 16 is unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Nakao and Nishikawa.
Ishihara discloses a contactless electric power transmission system (fig 1) comprising:
an electric power transmission device (1) that comprises an electric power transmission-side resonance circuit comprising an electric power transmission-side coil (13) and an electric power transmission-side capacitor (12); and
a coil unit according to claim 1 (see art rejection above).
Ishihara does not expressly disclose the winding direction of the coils (13, 21) is opposite. Nishikawa discloses that it is known to orientate transmitter and receiver coils in the same winding direction or opposite winding directions (fig 4; par 71-79). Ishihara and Nishikawa are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transfer systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Ishihara coils to be wound in opposite directions, as taught by Nishikawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of the known benefits of such an orientation.
The fact that claim 16 explicitly introduces “an electric power transmission device” as a claimed limitation proves that such a component is not part of the scope of claim 1 (or its other dependent claims). The claim 1 limitation that passive LC structure is “configured to generate [] a reverse-phase current” does not change this analysis.
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 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