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 February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In future replies, the Applicant is requested to provide citations to the specification for written description support of amendments.
The objection to claims 7 and 10 is withdrawn. The Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to [function]” is a structural limitation – it does not “recite features of those claims as functions that are actively performed”. This phrase defines the structure by the functionality that it can accomplish without further modifications. If the Applicant intends to claim actively performed functions, they may consider a method claim.
The Examiner notes that passive language has been introduced in the amendment to claim 1 (the coils “are provided so as to”) and claim 5 (“capacitor has a value”).
The Applicant’s comments (pages 6-9) are nearly identical to those already addressed and rebutted. Various citations to embodiments in the specification is not a substitute for an explanation of where these embodiments/examples are explicitly recited in the claims. A quotation of the entirety of claim 1 (Remarks, page 8) is not necessary if the arguments are only directed to the amended language (bolded at the bottom of page 8)
At the top of page 9, the Applicant summarizes the Examiner’s position regarding Ishihara. In the next paragraph, the Applicant contends that Ishihara does not disclose its selected frequency is the second high-side resonance point and “representing a reverse-phase resonance mode”. The Office has already established that the double peak/maximum resonance frequency curve is inherent in Ishihara (or at least obvious in view of Nakao). The Applicant does not dispute this. Thus, Ishihara (alone or with Nakao) discloses three peaks: a first high maximum, a low minimum, a second high maximum (see Nakao fig 3). Furthermore, claim 1 is directed only to the reception device. There is no transmitter or transmitter coil to which any winding direction can be established to identify what is “opposite”. This interpretation has been consistently presented to the Applicant and has not been addressed or rebutted. Highlighting “representing a reverse-phase resonance mode” is not a sufficient rebuttal. “representing” is not a structural limitation – it is descriptive of a relationship between two frequencies. As Ishihara discloses claimed reception device structure and the three peak resonance graphs, it will have the same “representations” as claimed.
The penultimate limitation of claim 1 (first paragraph of the amendment) does not overcome this interpretation. This limitation names the two coils (only one of which is claimed – see line 4 of claim 1) and then recites that they “are provided so as to” (the passive voice language that has been consistently interpreted as being descriptive that happen (not further limiting of claimed structure or functionality). Ishihara’s reception device coil is “provided” and, together with the series capacitor, has the same resonant structure and AC power generation functionality as the claimed coil. The descriptive “are provided” phrase is redundant to the already defined structure (claim 1, lines 4-8).
Next, the Applicant contends that Ishihara discloses a “method of performing an iterative frequency adjustment process” (Remarks, page 10, top). Herein lies the issue – the Applicant’s claim does not define any process or method for determining the resonance frequency.
Amended claim 1 recites “the control device determines the request frequency based on the frequency of the second resonant point”. “based on” does not incorporate any distinct process, method or calculation into the claim. “based on” broadly implies a relationship, but none is explicitly defined (it could be numerical, electrical, magnetic, etc.). Claim limitations (especially those that the Applicant considers to be the reason for allowance) should be explicitly written and not rely on what a reader may infer from the language. The fact that the two frequencies are represented by numbers means that the skilled artisan can derive an equation to calculate one from the other. For example, 45 is “based on” 10 because 10 can be multiplied by 4.5. “based on” doesn’t require that this calculation is actually done within the scope of the claim – just that a relationship exist.
Further, claim 1 already recited, “the control device sets a frequency of the second resonance point [] to a request frequency” (lines 16-19). The claim already established that the two frequencies are the same. The amended language is now broader and seeks to redefine the two frequencies as only “based on” each other. For this reason, a §112(b) rejection is provided below.
The claim then concludes by describing how the second resonance point is “obtained”. This descriptive and not further limiting for the structure of the control device. The claim does not recite any structural (or functional) limitations of the control device to obtain this type of information and then use this information in an process, method or calculation to create a new frequency value. Namely, the claim is silent as to any sensors or data inputs to give the control device the ability to “obtain” or know what these characteristic frequencies are.
The Applicant’s argument that Ishihara discloses the wrong process is not persuasive because the claims do not define any distinguishing process. Claim 1 recites that the control device “sets” the request frequency (without explaining the process) and that this frequency has a “based on” relationship to other frequencies (“based on” is not a process).
If the Applicant intends to seek patent protection over a process, method or calculation for determining the request frequency value that uses specific input values (i.e. to distinguish over a process that is iterative), they are invited to amend the claims accordingly.
The previous office action failed to treat pending claims 13-15 and, therefore, this Action is made non-final.
The Applicant does not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims. Heading III is directed to dependent claims 8 and 11 (see pages 10-11), but the arguments are directed to claim 1 and limitations for which Ahn was not alleged to teach. The Applicant does not actually address the citations to Ahn to support the art rejection of claims 8 and 11.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the control device sets a frequency of the second resonance point [] to a request frequency”. This phrase explicitly states that the two frequencies are the same.
Claim 1 then recites, “the control device determines the request frequency based on the frequency of the second resonance point”. This phrase broadens the scope of the claim by indicating that there is only a loose relationship between the frequencies (one is “based on” the other). The rest of the last limitation of the claim (“obtained from…”) is descriptive of the second resonance point and does not affect the indefinite analysis.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites both a narrow relationship (they are the same) and a broad relationship (they are only “based on” each other). This type of language, for the same limitation, renders the scope of the claim unclear. The public would not clearly identify if the Applicant is seeking patent protection over the narrow relationship or the broad one.
For the purpose of the art rejection of claim 1, the narrow relationship (the language prior to the amendment) will be interpreted as controlling. This effectively means that the last limitation of claim 1 is redundant to the “the control device sets” limitation.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because the penultimate limitation recites that the transmission-side coil and reception device coil “are provided so as to generate a reverse-phase current with each other”. The entirety of the body of claim 1, however, is directed to the reception device only. The coil unit only includes the receiver-side components. The transmitter is explicitly omitted, yet the Applicant intends for its provision (i.e. its express physical existence) to be included within the scope of the claim to satisfy the requirement of “so as to generate a reverse-phase current with each other” in the receiver. Different readers would draw different conclusions as to the scope of claim 1 (transmitter coil claimed vs not claimed).
For the purpose of the art rejection of claim 1, the transmitter and transmitter coil are interpreted as not claimed. The penultimate clause will be interpreted as descriptive of the intended consequence of a hypothetical of having the transmitter coil (with its opposite direction winding) in proximity to the reception coil.
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the two deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 13 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis in the claim for a rectifier, let alone any that performs “synchronous rectification operation”. It is unclear what the control device controls, if the target of the control is not distinctly claimed. The amendment to replace “the” with “a” does not resolve this issue because the synchronous rectification operation is a functionality – the claim is an apparatus claim and, as such, should explicitly provide the antecedent basis for a synchronous rectifier (i.e. what it is, where it is). Only after this structure is introduced, can there be meaning to the control device’s control over it.
Claim 16 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1 and is indefinite for the first reason only. Claim 16 expressly requires the transmitter and, therefore, clarifies the issue of item 5, above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3 and 5 are descriptive of the capacitance. The equation for resonance is:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the capacitance of a capacitor in the LC resonant circuit will inherently “have a value that creates” any/all of the resonance points.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 5, 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 1-3, 5, 7, 8-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Nakao.
With respect to claim 1, Ishihara discloses a coil unit (fig 2, 5, 7; par 19-25, 31-47) comprising: an electric power reception device that comprises a resonance circuit (23) mounted on a vehicle (intended use; does not breathe life into the claim) and comprising:
a coil (21) that generates, when receiving an AC electric power transmitted in a contactless manner from an electric power transmission- side coil of an electric power transmission device, 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 will react in the same way to induce the same type of current as claimed), and
a capacitor (22) connected in series with the coil; and
a control device (27, 28), wherein
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 control device 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 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 electric power transmission-side coil (not claimed) and the electric power reception device coil are provided (passive voice that implies a specific special orientation – but only one coil is being claimed) so as to (what follows indicates an intended consequence of the “provided” positioning, but only the reception coil is claimed – without the transmitter coil, there can be no power transmission) generate a reverse-phase current with each other at a time of electric power transmitter (this paragraph is interpreted as descriptive of a hypothetical should an oppositely-would transmitter coil be placed/provided near the claimed reception device coil), and
the control device determines the request frequency based on the frequency of the second resonance point (broader than the first “the control device” paragraph – it is interpreted as being redundant) obtained from a characteristic frequency of each of the transmission-side coil (not claimed) and the reception-side coil and a coupling coefficient between the transmission-side and reception-side coils (k does not exist if there is no transmitter).
The vehicle is interpreted as an intended use limitation. It is only mentioned in passing for what the resonance circuit is mounted to. 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 with 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). 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, 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.
Ishihara explicitly discloses that the receiver sets a frequency as the requested frequency (par 43). The Applicant does not contest or rebut this analysis. 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 [reception-side] 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”. 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 3 and 5, Ishihara discloses the capacitance of the capacitor has a value that creates the second resonant point (par 22). The capacitance in the LC circuit inherently “creates” resonance and all of the “points” in the frequency/impedance (or frequency/efficiency) plot.
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). That is it. 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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Stingu (US 2022/0360117). Alternatively, claim 13 is unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Nakao and Stingu.
Ishihara discloses the coil unit and control device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose synchronous rectification operation control. Stingu disclose a wireless power receiver comprising a control device that controls a synchronous rectification operation in accordance with a magnitude and the phase of a current generated in an electric power reception portion by electric power transmitted from the electric power transmission device (fig 1, 15; par 151).
The claim only broadly recites that the control is “in accordance with a magnitude and the phase” and does not explicitly recite how. It is unclear what the control device is actually doing (it is inputting magnitude and phase information to create a feedback loop? Is it regulating magnitude and phase on the basis of other input information?).
Ishihara and Stingu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power receivers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Ishihara and Stingu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use two known circuits next to each other. As discussed above, there is no antecedent basis in the claim for the receiver comprising a rectifier. Thus, claim 13 is directed to control over “synchronous rectification operation” that does not have to be electrically related to any other part of the claim 1 coil unit. The obviousness rejection is not required to “combine” references to show how one circuit works with the other.
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.
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, Rex Barnie 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