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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on January 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 12 (ZVS), the arguments are persuasive and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new anticipation rejection is presented citing Cook (US 2010/0148723), which discloses adjusting a capacitance to maintain an inverter at ZVS (fig 9; par 55).
Regarding claims 27 and 31, the arguments are not persuasive. “prior” is open ended and is not clearly defined. The Applicants were presented with this interpretation (see Final, bottom of page 3) and have not addressed or rebutted it. Thus, it is presumed to be correct. Cho discloses multiple capacitance adjustment events (see figs 5-6). Any one event would be “prior” to a second.
The claim objections are withdrawn.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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cook (US 2010/0148723).
With respect to claim 1, Cook discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 9, item 308T; par 55-56) comprising:
a wireless power transmitting coil (the unlabeled inductor within 306T);
an inverter (Q1, Q1’) that receives an input voltage and generates an AC output voltage that drives the wireless power transmitting coil, the inverter comprising a plurality of switching devices (Q1, Q1’);
at least one adjustable capacitance (C1) coupled to the wireless power transmitting coil; and
control circuitry (322T and the inherent controller to adjust C1) that operates the inverter and the at least one adjustable capacitance to deliver wireless power to a wireless power receiver, wherein the control circuitry adjusts the at least one adjustable capacitance to maintain ZVS operation of the inverter (par 55, last sentence).
Cook discloses adjusting an adjustable capacitor to maintain ZVS of an inverter. Thus, Cook anticipates claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, Cook anticipates the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method step (singular step of “adjusting”), as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1.
Claims 27-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US 2017/0093217).
With respect to claim 27, Cho discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 2-5; par 51-99) comprising:
a wireless power transmitting coil (within 130);
an inverter (120) that receives an input voltage and generates an AC output voltage that drives the wireless power transmitting coil;
at least one adjustable capacitance (141) coupled to the wireless power transmitting coil; and
control circuitry (140, 150) that operates the inverter (par 57, 59) and the at least one adjustable capacitance (via control lines to SWn; see at least par 82) to deliver wireless power to a wireless power receiver, wherein the control circuitry responds to power demand from the wireless power receiver by:
performing the functionality of claims 4-5; or
performing the functionality of claims 6-7.
The Applicants are directed to the art rejections of claims 4-7 (and corresponding explanation of the claim language and reference’s disclosure) for the same limitations in claim 27.
With respect to claim 28, Cho discloses the at least one adjustable capacitance includes one or more capacitors (VCn) selectively couplable to the wireless power transmitting coil by one or more switches (SWn) controlled by the control circuitry.
With respect to claim 29, Cho discloses the at least one adjustable capacitance includes at least one capacitor (the unlabeled capacitor within 130) coupled to the wireless power transmitting coil and at least two capacitors (any two of VC1-3) selectively couplable to the wireless power transmitting coil by one or more switches (SWn) controlled by the control circuitry.
With respect to claim 31, Cho anticipates the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 27.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Min (US 2017/0250574).
With respect to claim 2, Cook discloses a variable capacitor, but does not expressly disclose its internal structure. Min discloses a variable capacitor (fig 5, either of 121 or 122), wherein the adjustable capacitance includes one or more capacitors (Cr1_2 to Cr1_n) selectively couplable to the wireless power transmitting coil by one or more switches (Sr1_2 to Sr1_n) controlled by the control circuitry.
Cook and Min are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with variable capacitances. 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 Cook variable capacitor C1 to be a plurality of individually selectable capacitors, as taught by Min. The motivation for doing so would have been to “fill in the gaps” in the Cook disclosure and construct the variable capacitor with a known and proven design.
With respect to claim 3, Min discloses the adjustable capacitance includes at least one capacitor (Cr1_1) coupled to the wireless power transmitting coil and at least two capacitors (any two of Cr1_n) selectively couplable to the wireless power transmitting coil (see fig 4, item 130) by one or more switches (Sr1_n) controlled by the control circuitry.
The references are analogous, as discussed above. While Min also discloses a transmitting coil, the combination of references would couple the selectable Min capacitances to the Cook transmitting coil (as shown in figure 9).
Claims 4-7, 13-14 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Cho (US 2017/0093217). Claims 25 and 26 will be treated first, as they occur first in their respective claim trees.
With respect to claims 25-26, Cook discloses at least one of the adjustable capacitances is controller to achieve ZVS, but does not expressly disclose controlling an adjustable capacitance for voltage regulation. Cho discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 2-6; par 51-99) comprising:
a wireless power transmitting coil (within 130);
an inverter (120) to drive the transmitting coil;
at least one adjustable capacitance (141) coupled to the transmitting coil; and
control circuitry (140, 150) that operates the inverter and the at least one adjustable capacitance to deliver wireless power to a wireless power receiver, the control circuitry responds to power demand from the wireless power receiver by:
determining whether the input voltage is at a maximum value (fig 5, YES at S530) and, if so, reducing the at least one adjustable capacitance to increase gain (S540; par 91 – see fig 6, any one of events T1, T2, T3); or
determining whether the input voltage is at a minimum value (YES at S550) and, if so, increasing the at least one adjustable capacitance to decrease gain (S560; par 92 – see fig 6, any one of events T4, T5, T6).
Cho, as discussed in previous office actions, discloses adjusting a variable capacitance to regulate voltage withing minimum and maximum values. Cook and Cho are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with adjustable capacitances. 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 Cook with Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve the benefits of both functionalities (ZVS, voltage regulation) within one device.
Cho and Cook combine to discloses the associated method (claim 26) as discussed above. The only difference in the claim is the introductory phrase of “response to increased/decreased power demand from a wireless power receiver”. This is interpreted as information that can be inferred from the voltage (near maximum, near minimum). The receiver isn’t claim and the transmitter does not have any communication capability to have any awareness of receiver demand or power usage.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Cho discloses wherein determining whether the input voltage is at a maximum value and, if so, reducing the at least one adjustable capacitance to increase gain further comprises preventing wireless power receiving overvoltage events caused by reducing the at least one adjustable capacitance by at least temporarily adjusting the input voltage prior to reducing the at least one adjustable capacitance (see fig 6 – capacitance adjustment at T1 is “prior to” the capacitance adjustment at T2 or T3).
The “to prevent” language is descriptive of a benefit. Support for this can be found in that the receiver isn’t claimed and the transmitter has no receiver voltage feedback information. The transmitter is taking an action with the intention of creating a benefit in the receiver. Cho discloses a plurality of capacitance adjustment events to reduce the voltage (T1-T3) and any one Tn is “prior to” another Tn+1.
The claim only broadly recites that the claim 25 capacitance-control functionality includes an additional capacitance-control “prior to” it. The claim does not place any limits on the time frame over which this is intended to occur. Thus, Cho’s sequence of events (figs 5-6) satisfies the claim language.
With respect to claim 5, Cho discloses wherein at least temporarily adjusting the input voltage prior to reducing the at least one adjustable capacitance is performed by the control circuitry (everything in the transmitter is “performed by the control circuity”) responsive to an operating power level of the wireless power transmitter (see figs 5-6).
Claim 5 does not recite any distinct functionality control. The Applicants should consider replacing the passive “is performed by” and, instead, phrase the limitation as the distinct actions (or configuration) taken by the control circuitry. Further, the claim makes no mention or any operating power level sensor/detector and the then controller making a determination about when/why to adjust input voltage. The broad language in the claim hints at the control circuitry doing something passively, but does not explicitly detail how/when/why it is done.
The passive voice in the claim does not explicitly define how any adjustment is made and, therefore, does not distinguish over the interpretation that Cho’s adjustments are continuous (and any adjustment at Tn is “prior to” the adjustment at Tn+1). The entire functionality of the Cho transmitter is due to the operation of (“is performed by”) the controller (140, 150) and is “responsive” to the operating power level of the transmitter. The Applicants do not address or rebut the interpretations of the passive language in the claim and, therefore, they are presumed to be correct.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Cho discloses wherein determining whether the input voltage is at a minimum value and, if so, increasing the at least one adjustable capacitance to decrease gain further comprises preventing wireless power receiver overvoltage events caused by increasing the at least one adjustable capacitance by at least temporarily adjusting the input voltage prior to increasing the at least one adjustable capacitance (fig 6, adjustments at T4, T5, T6; adjustments at Tn-1 are “prior to” adjustments at Tn).
The same analysis applies as presented for the art rejection of claim 4.
With respect to claim 7, Cho discloses wherein at least temporarily adjusting the input voltage prior to increasing the at least one adjustable capacitance is responsive to an operating power level of the wireless power transmitter (see figs 5-6 and the analysis of the art rejection of claim 5).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of Cho and Min.
With respect to claim 9, as discussed above, Cook is modified by Min (fig 5) to have its variable capacitance include capacitors selectively controlled by a switch. Cook (modified by Min) and Cho combine to disclose the at least one adjustable capacitance includes:
one or more capacitors (Cho VCn) selectively couplable between the inverter output and the wireless power transmitting coil by one or more first switches (Cho SWn) controlled by the control circuitry; and
one or more capacitors (Cook C1) selectively couplable between the inverter output and ground by one or more second switches (Cook as modified by Min) controlled by the control circuitry.
With respect to claim 10, each of Cook and Cho are modified by Min to disclose:
the one or more (Cho) capacitors selectively couplable between the inverter output and the wireless power transmitting coil include at least one capacitor coupled between the inverter output and the wireless power transmitting coil (Min, fig 5, item Cr1_1) and at least two capacitors selectively couplable between the inverter output and the wireless power transmitting coil by the one or more first switches (Cho fig 4, VCn within 141; Min, Cr1_n); and
the one or more (Cook) capacitors selectively couplable between the inverter output and ground include at least one capacitor coupled between the inverter output and ground and a plurality of capacitors selectively couplable between the inverter output and ground by the one or more second switches (as modified by Min, see art rejection of claim 3).
Cook and Min are combined to have the Cook variable capacitance be distinct capacitors (one fixed, two or more controlled by a switch), and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 3.
Cho discloses all of its capacitors (141) are switchable and does not expressly disclose a fixed one. Min discloses that a variable capacitor can include a fixed capacitor in parallel to the switchable ones. Cho and Min are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with . At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Cho’s variable capacitance to include one fixed capacitor, as taught by Min. The motivation for doing so would have been the obviousness of replacing one type of variable capacitor (all selectable) with another (one fixed, rest selectable).
The claim does not expressly disclose that the “one capacitor coupled” must be switchless or permanent. The Applicants should consider amending the claim to make this clearer.
Claims 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho and Min. This is an alternative rejection, placing the one coupled capacitor in parallel with the switchable ones (even though the claim does not require such a structure).
Cho and Min combine to discloses the one fixed and multiple switchable capacitors, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 10.
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