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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant does not address, respond or rebut the Examiner’s interpretation that the scope of the pending claims is limited to the wireless power transmitter. Neither the control device nor the display device are claimed. Recitations about what the control/display device are or what they do does not further narrow the structure or functionality of the transmitter itself. The Applicant has also elected Invention I (directed to only the transmitter) without traverse.
The Applicant does not acknowledge that they are disclosing a three-body system, but have only elected to claim one body (transmitter only). The RCE does not contain any remarks for how the existence or functionality of the control device and display device has any relevance to the claimed transmitter.
Regarding element (i) in the remarks (page 10), the control device sends first information “that designates a display device”. The claimed transmitter only transmits power “based on the first information” broadly. It does not react to, or have awareness of, the display device designation.
Regarding element (ii) in the remarks, the control device sends control information “for controlling the first power receiving device to perform a specific operation” and then the display device performs the operation (it displays information or lights up). The transmitter does not have awareness of, or react to, this control information. And the receiver and its display device are not claimed. How the display device reacts (display information or light up) is irrelevant to the transmitter structure. The creation, transmission, reception and reaction to the control information does not affect the structure or functionality of the transmitter.
“Accordingly, [] Leabman fails to disclose or suggest all of the features as recited in amended independent claim 1” (Remarks, page 10, last paragraph). This is incorrect, as the presence of these words in the claim does not mean that they are claimed or given patentable weight to be included within the scope of protection. The Applicant has been put on notice regarding the one-body interpretation and they have not acknowledged it. It cannot be rebutted if it will not be acknowledged. The issue cannot be resolved by avoiding it.
The one-body claim interpretation remains uncontested and the art rejection is maintained.
Furthermore, the “display information or light up” language was taken from withdrawn claim 17. And new claims 21-23 are directed to features of the receiver as well. Any future amendments that attempt to incorporate withdrawn subject matter, without even explaining why the amendment should be considered despite the election, will be considered as non-responsive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-23 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.
As repeatedly pointed out, and not rebutted, the claims are directed to the power supply device (transmitter). What the power receiving device is (claims 21-22) or additional data within the first control signal created by the control device (claim 23) does not further limit the structure of the power supply device.
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 1-2, 5-8, 10, 15 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leabman (US 10,128,699).
With respect to claim 1, Leabman discloses a power supply device (fig 1, 4, transmitter 102; col. 4-8 and 14-15) comprising:
a receiving unit (112) configured to receive, from a control device (unclaimed), a first control signal including (i) first information that designates a display device (unclaimed) as a first power receiving device from among a plurality of power receiving devices (step 402; col. 5, lines 32-40; col. 14, line 64 to col. 15, line 29), and (ii) control information for controlling the first power receiving device to perform a specific operation (the Leabman receiving unit is “configured to” receive any information sent to it) and
a power transmitting unit (all of 102, except for its communication module 112) configured to transmit a wireless power transmission signal (110) for power supply to the first power receiving device (106/107), based on the first information (step 404; col. 5, lines 32-30; col. 15, lines 30-36 – the transmission of power is “based on” the information that indicates the “identity” and authorization of the receiver and it is “based on” the sensor information);
wherein, after receipt of the wireless power transmission signal and the first control signal by the first power receiving device (the receiving device isn’t claimed – so what it does “after receipt” of power/communication does not further limit the structure of the power supply device [wireless power transmitter]), the first control signal causes the first power receiving device display information or to light up (descriptive of events that are outside the scope of the claim; not relevant to the transmitter).
As discussed above, the Applicant’s preferred embodiment is a three-body system (control device, power supply device [wireless power transmitter], display device [wireless power receiver]). The claim is explicitly directed to only the power supply device (transmitter) and omits the other two.
The Leabman transmitter anticipates claim 1 because it comprises the two claimed structures. First, it discloses a communication device that is “configured to receive” communication/data signals. Leabman discloses receiving communication, including a first control signal with first information that designates the power receiving device. The origin of this information does not further limit the structure of the power supply device. It is irrelevant that the Leabman sensor sends the first information – nor does the Applicant argue that it is disqualifying.
As Leabman discloses the “configured to receive” structure of its communication circuitry, it is also inherently “configured to receive” other information - including “control information”. The claimed power supply device does not use or react to the control information in any way – thus, the language of “(ii)” is interpreted as redundant to the structure of “configured to receive”.
Second, Leabman discloses a wireless power transmitter to send wireless power to a specific receiver. The Applicant does not dispute otherwise.
The analysis of Leabman ends there. There wherein clause is descriptive of events that occur outside the scope of the claim. What the unclaimed power receiving device does with the control signal is irrelevant and does not affect the structure of the transmitter.
With respect to claim 2, Leabman discloses the first information includes an identification code by which the first power receiving device is identifiable (col. 5, lines 32-40).
With respect to claim 5, Leabman discloses the power supply device includes the control device (see fig 1). For the purpose of the art rejection of claim 5, the Leabman power supply device is interpreted as including the communication module (fig 2, item 206) within the receiver. The claim only flatly states that one device can include another – thus, the same labeling is possible with Leabman.
With respect to claim 6, Leabman discloses a plurality of power receiving devices are installed in each of a plurality of power supply areas (col. 14, lines 58-63). Leabman discloses the presence of a plurality of receivers. Each receiver takes up space and, therefore, they are “each” in a different location (i.e. power supply area).
With respect to claim 7, Leabman discloses a power supply device, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1, and further discloses the transmission unit is configured to:
transmit, to the control device, a signal to wait for retransmitting the first control signal until the transmission of the wireless power transmission signal is started; or
transmit the first control signal to the first power receiving device after transmission of the wireless power transmission signal is started (supported by col. 5, lines 27-40);
whereby the first control signal causes the first power receiving device to display information or to light up based on the control information (not further limiting to the scope of the claim – i.e. the transmitter – as discussed above).
The “or” in claim 7 indicates that the prior art is only required to disclose one of the two options. Leabman discloses the second “transmit” option. The “whereby” clause is directed to functionality within an unclaimed device and does not further limit the structure of the transmitter.
With respect to claim 8, Leabman discloses a power supply device, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1, and further discloses the transmission unit is configured to transmit the first control signal to the first power receiving device between start and termination of transmission of the wireless power transmission signal (col. 5, lines 27-40 and step 406).
Leabman discloses that, between the start/end of wireless power transmission, the transmitter receives updated sensor information (step 406). This is interpreted as including the transmitter requesting that information (col. 5, lines 37-38). The rest of the limitations of the claim repeat those already addressed in the art rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, Leabman discloses
the receiving unit is configured to receive the communication signal from the first power receiving device (see fig 1- the transmitter includes a communication module that is configured to receive the sensor data from the power receiving device), and
the power supply device is configured to terminate transmission of the wireless power transmission signal, based on the received communication signal (step 406; “and may adjust (e.g. increase, decrease, or cease) transmission based upon the updated sensor data.”).
The first paragraph of claim 10 is directed to functionality within the unclaimed first power receiving device. What the receiver does (display, light up, send information) is not relevant to the structure of the power supply device – the language of this first paragraph is omitted solely for brevity.
With respect to claim 15, Leabman discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program comprising instructions executable by a computer (col. 5, line 41-42) to control the computer to perform the functionality of claim 1, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1.
The computer problem recited in claim 15 is directed to control functionality that is entirely within the transmitter (power supply device). The functionality of the control device and power receiving device are not included within the scope of the claim.
Leabman’s power supply system is autonomous, it clearly has the necessary hardware (processor and memory) to do so. This is further supported by Leabman’s explicitly disclosure of a processor.
With respect to claim 19, Leabman discloses the power transmitting unit is configured to acquire, form an information table, location information on a positional relationship between the power supply device and the first power receiving device (see Leabman fig 1, item 104; col. 8, lines 41-53). Leabman uses sensor data to create an information table. This is evidence of the generic structure to be “configured to acquire” this information back from the memory.
The information table itself is not being claimed – the claim is limited to the structure of the power transmitting unit to acquire data from a hypothetical table. Claim 19 does not even particularly point out or distinctly claim that the power supply device comprises a memory to store the table. The Examiner also notes the additional breadth in that the claim does not recite what is done with the acquired information – simply being “configured to acquire” data from a table is not the same as actually using that data to improve wireless power transfer functionality.
With respect to claims 20 and 24-26, Leabman discloses the receiving unit (communication module 112) is different from the first power receiving device (106 – see fig 1).
With respect to claims 21-23, these claims do not further limit the power supply device of claim 1.
Conclusion
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