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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) were filed on 04/23/2024 have been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “Wherein” is capitalized in the middle of the sentence (line 5). A possible correction would be to change the word “Wherein” to lowercase.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 3, the limitation (“wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is arranged at substantially identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits”) in lines 2-3 renders the claims unclear because it appears to be a substantial duplicate of lines 2-3 of claim 2, on which claim 3 depends, and therefore it is unclear what new or different features are implied or intended by the duplication. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are unclear. As best understood from the disclosure, lines 2-3 of claim 3 are intended to recite the same features as lines 2-3 of claim 2. A possible correction would be to delete lines 2-3 of claim 3. This is the interpretation that will be used in the rejections below.
Claim 4 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a power receiving device and a wireless power transmission system, which is considered to be a machine. Therefore, claims 1-10 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite “compare the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison”. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the power receiving device”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such the detection values output of current and abnormality threshold could compare the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison. The mere nominal recitation of “the power receiving device” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of a plurality of current detection sensors that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits and is configured to output detection values; a power receiving device; a power receiving antenna; a plurality of power receiving circuits; a switching element; one or more processors; one or more memories that store a computer-readable instruction; and a power transmission device. The plurality of current detection sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a power receiving device; a power receiving antenna; a plurality of power receiving circuits; a switching element; one or more processors; one or more memories that store a computer-readable instruction; and a power transmission device are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-9 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1,2, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0257866A1 (Lee) in view of US2006/0203524A1 (Ohno).
With regards to claim 1, Lee teaches a power receiving device (Fig. 4; wireless power reception apparatus [200]) that wirelessly receives power from a power transmission device (Fig. 3A; power transfer apparatus [100]), the power receiving device (wireless power reception apparatus [200]) comprising:
a power receiving antenna (coil [210]; Fig. 4; [0140] “The receiving coil 210 may receive power transmitted from the wireless power transfer apparatus 100”);
one or more processors (controller [250]); and one or more memories that store a computer-readable instruction for causing when executed by the one or more processors, ([0168] and [0170]; describing storage and processing of Vo and comparison to reference values. [0168] - [0171] Controller [250] inherently requires one or more memories to calculate and compare output values with predetermined reference values.)
Lee does not teach:
a plurality of power receiving circuits that each includes a switching element and is connected in parallel with each other;
a plurality of current detection sensors that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits and is configured to output detection values
the power receiving device to: compare the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison
Ohno teaches:
a plurality of power receiving circuits ([0005]; Fig. 4; switching power supply units [CONV1-CONVn]) that each includes a switching element ([0006]; switching transistor [Q1]) and is connected in parallel ([0004]) with each other;
a plurality of current detection sensors (Fig. 5; output current detection circuit [55]) that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits (Fig. 5; [0006]: “power supply unit comprises… an output current detection circuit [55]) and is configured to output detection values ([0007] and [0034]; “detects an output current and inputs an output current detection signal”)
the power receiving device to: compare the detection values (Fig. 4; current balancing terminals CB; [0005]; “are connected to each other so as to compare output current values”) the current output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison (Fig. 3; determination circuit 10; [0036]; “determines whether there is a failure based on the detection signals… and outputs the failure detection signal upon detection of an abnormality so as to control the switching circuit.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Ohno wherein a plurality of power receiving circuits that each includes a switching element and is connected in parallel with each other; a plurality of current detection sensors that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits and is configured to output detection values; the power receiving device to: compare the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison. This would be done to ensure high-power capability and system reliability. Lee discloses that wireless power can be used for high-power cooking appliances ([0006]). Ohno teaches that using plural small units in parallel “allows stable voltage supply to a load even when one of the switching power supply units fails” because the others “can make up for the failed switching power supply unit” ([0004]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding Ohno’s parallel current sensors and determination logic to Lee’s controller [250] provides a predictable structural modification for detecting abnormalities.
With regards to claim 2, Lee does not teach:
wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is arranged at substantially identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits
and wherein, if the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors are different from each other, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred.
Ohno teaches wherein the plurality of current detection sensors output is arranged at substantially identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits ([0005] – [0006] because the switching power supply units [CONV1-CONVn] are connected in parallel to the same load and input and have identical components, the current detection circuits [55] are located at the same functional electrical position.)
and wherein, if the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors are different from each other ([0013] – [0014]; describing when a unit fails, its output current becomes zero, creating a difference), the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred; ([0036]; “The determination circuit 10 determines whether there is a failure based on the detection signals”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Ohno wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is arranged at substantially identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits and wherein, if the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors are different from each other, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred. This would be done to identify an abnormality by comparing the outputs of identical sensors and ensure the reliability of a high-power wireless system.
With regards to claim 8, Lee does not teach:
wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is connected to output units of the plurality of power receiving circuits and a ground (GND).
Ohno teaches wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is connected to output units of the plurality of power receiving circuits (Fig. 5; junction between diode D1 and output terminal) and a ground (GND). (Fig. 2; [0032]; “a switching circuit SW1 connects and disconnects a first resistor Rb to and from ground.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Ohno wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is connected to output units of the plurality of power receiving circuits and a ground (GND). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that connecting sensors to a common ground ([0032]), provides a stable reference for comparing branch circuits. This is a predictable application of known circuit monitoring techniques to ensure current balance and allow the controller to identify specific branch failures ([0021]).
With regards to claim 9, Lee does not teach:
wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is each connected in series with the switching element.
Ohno teaches wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is each connected in series with the switching element. ([0029]; Fig. 6; resistor [Rb] and diode [D1]; Current detection sensor [Rb] is connected in series with switching element [D1] such that the branch current passes through both components to generate detection signal [V1]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Ohno wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is each connected in series with the switching element. This modification represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (MPEP 2143: (A)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that while Lee teaches the general concept of detecting abnormalities via current, Ohno’s specific topology of placing a sensor in series with a switching element is a known technique to directly monitor the load state of specific circuit branches. This would be done to ensure that the determination circuit can distinguish between a failure in the switching element versus a general load failure. Therefore, improving the diagnostic accuracy and system reliability of the high-power wireless system.
With regards to claim 10, Lee teaches
A wireless power transmission system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a power transmission device configured to wirelessly transmit power (Fig. 3A; power transfer apparatus [100]); and
a power receiving device (Fig. 4; wireless power reception apparatus [200]) configured to wirelessly receive the power from the power transmission device (Fig. 3A; power transfer apparatus [100]), the power receiving device (wireless power reception apparatus [200]) including:
a power receiving antenna (coil [210]; Fig. 4; [0140] “The receiving coil 210 may receive power transmitted from the wireless power transfer apparatus 100”);
one or more processors (controller [250]); and one or more memories that store a computer-readable instruction for causing when executed by the one or more processors, ([0168] and [0170]; describing storage and processing of Vo and comparison to reference values. [0168] - [0171] Controller [250] inherently requires one or more memories to calculate and compare output values with predetermined reference values.)
Lee does not teach:
a plurality of power receiving circuits that each includes a switching element and is connected in parallel with each other;
a plurality of current detection sensors that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits and is configured to output detection values
the power receiving device to: compare the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison
Ohno teaches:
a plurality of power receiving circuits ([0005]; Fig. 4; switching power supply units [CONV1-CONVn]) that each includes a switching element ([0006]; switching transistor [Q1]) and is connected in parallel ([0004]) with each other;
a plurality of current detection sensors (Fig. 5; output current detection circuit [55]) that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits (Fig. 5; [0006]: “power supply unit comprises… an output current detection circuit [55]) and is configured to output detection values ([0007] and [0034]; “detects an output current and inputs an output current detection signal”)
the power receiving device to: compare the detection values (Fig. 4; current balancing terminals CB; [0005]; “are connected to each other so as to compare output current values”) the current output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison (Fig. 3; determination circuit 10; [0036]; “determines whether there is a failure based on the detection signals… and outputs the failure detection signal upon detection of an abnormality so as to control the switching circuit.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Ohno wherein a plurality of power receiving circuits that each includes a switching element and is connected in parallel with each other; a plurality of current detection sensors that is arranged in the plurality of power receiving circuits and is configured to output detection values; the power receiving device to: compare the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors; and determine whether an abnormality has occurred based on results of comparison. This would be done to ensure high-power capability and system reliability. Lee discloses that wireless power can be used for high-power cooking appliances ([0006]). Ohno teaches that using plural small units in parallel “allows stable voltage supply to a load even when one of the switching power supply units fails” because the others “can make up for the failed switching power supply unit” ([0004]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding Ohno’s parallel current sensors and determination logic to Lee’s controller [250] provides a predictable structural modification for detecting abnormalities.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/257866 (Lee) in view of US2006/0203524A1 (Ohno) and US5369541A (Normet).
With regards to claim 3, Lee as modified by Ohno teaches:
wherein the plurality of current detection sensors is arranged at substantially the identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits ([0005] – [0006] because the switching power supply units [CONV1-CONVn] are connected in parallel to the same load and input and have identical components, the current detection circuits [55] are located at the same functional electrical position.),
Lee as modified by Ohno does not teach:
and wherein the power receiving device calculates a division value using a smaller value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a numerator and a larger value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a denominator, and if the division value is smaller than a threshold, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred.
Normet teaches:
and wherein the power receiving device calculates a division value using a smaller value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a numerator and a larger value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a denominator (Col. 2, lines 38-40; “sensing the presence of a trough voltage less than the predetermined fraction of the peak voltage”. This comparison inherently requires calculating a division value (ratio) where the trough (the smaller value of the detection signal) is compared as a numerator against the peak (the larger value of the detection signal) as a denominator.), and if the division value is smaller than a threshold, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred. (Col. 4, lines 2-5; “will provide an output indicating phase unbalance if the voltage… is less than the selected portion (threshold) of the voltage…”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee as modified by Ohno by incorporating the ratio-based determination logic of Normet wherein the power receiving device calculates a division value using a smaller value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a numerator and a larger value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a denominator, and if the division value is smaller than a threshold, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a division value (ratio) between minimum and maximum current values, rather than an absolute difference, provides a load-independent threshold for abnormality detection. Therefore, substituting a simple comparison with Normet’s logic of calculating a division value from the smaller and larger sensor outputs to provide a robust diagnostic method ensures system reliability across varying power levels. (MPEP 2143, (A))
With regards to claim 4, Lee as modified by Ohno and Normet does not teach:
wherein the threshold is 0.5.
Normet further teaches a threshold (Col. 4, lines 2-5; “selected portion”; Col. 4, lines 21-23; “it can be calculated that Tn (balanced trough) is little more than 85% of Pn (balanced peak)”). Normet establishes that the “predetermined fraction” used as a threshold must be less than the balanced ratio (0.85) to determine a fault.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee as modified by Ohno and Normet wherein the threshold is 0.5. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that setting a specific numerical threshold is a matter of design choice and involves the optimization of a range. (MPEP 2144.05) to balance system sensitivity against false alarms. Therefore, setting a threshold of 0.5 is a predictable result of calibrating the comparison circuit to detect an abnormality or an “open state” ([0011]; [Application’s Specification]: [0033]) to ensure the diagnostic logic accurately identifies significant power receiving circuit failures in a high-power wireless system.
With regards to claim 5, Lee as modified by Ohno and Normet does not teach:
further comprising an average value calculation unit configured to calculate an average value of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors arranged at substantially identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits,
Wherein, if the average value and at least one of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors are different, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred.
Normet teaches:
further comprising an average value calculation unit configured to calculate an average value of the detection values (Col. 1, lines 10-11; describing monitoring where an “average of the phase-voltage is well within the acceptable range”; output from the plurality of current detection sensors arranged at substantially identical positions in the plurality of power receiving circuits,
Wherein, if the average value and at least one of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors are different, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred. (Col. 1, lines 40-52; describes a system that analyzes the relationship between phase voltages and the average to detect an unbalance even when the average is within a range.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee as modified by Ohno by incorporating an average value calculation unit of Normet. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using Lee’s controller [250] and memory for processing detection values ([0168]), it would be a routine implementation for the processor to calculate the mathematical average of the plurality of sensor outputs to ensure the branch currents “should be the same” (Col. 1, lines 49-52). This modification is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (MPEP 2143, (A)) to provide a robust diagnostic method that ensures the “optimum reliability” of the system and avoids “catastrophic failure” (Col. 1, lines 18-28) in high-power wireless transmission application.
With regards to claim 6, Lee as modified by Ohno and Normet does not teach:
wherein the power receiving device calculates a division value using at least one of the detection values output from the plurality of current detection sensors as a numerator and the average value as a denominator, and if the division value is smaller than a threshold, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred.
Normet further teaches (Col. 2, lines 38-41) “deriving a predetermined fraction of the peak voltage for comparison with the instantaneous voltage”. Normet teaches that evaluating the “relationship between the voltages” by using an instantaneous detecting value (the numerator) and a reference value derived from the system (the denominator) to sense if a value is “less than the predetermined fraction” (Col. 2, lines 41-43). Normet establishes this comparison is necessary because “the sinusoidal voltage difference… should be the same” (Col. 1, lines 47-50) using the system’s average value as the denominator to identify unbalance.),
and if the division value is smaller than a threshold, the power receiving device determines that an abnormality has occurred. (Col. 1, lines 40-52; describes a system that analyzes the relationship between phase voltages and the average to detect an unbalance even when the average is within a range.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee as modified by Ohno by incorporating the ratio-based logic of Normet. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using Lee’s controller [250] to calculate a ratio rather than an absolute difference is a routine implementation to create load-independent diagnostic. (Col. 4, lines 65-66) This modification is a predictable use of prior art elements to their established functions (MPEP 2143, (A)) to provide a robust diagnostic method that ensures the system identifies failing branches under varying load conditions and ensure the reliability of a high-power wireless system.
With regards to claim 7, Lee as modified by Ohno and Normet does not teach:
wherein the threshold is 0.6.
Normet further teaches a threshold (Col. 4, lines 2-5; “selected portion”; Col. 4, lines 21-23; “it can be calculated that Tn (balanced trough) is little more than 85% of Pn (balanced peak)”). Normet establishes that the “predetermined fraction” used as a threshold must be less than the balanced ratio (0.85) to determine a fault.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless power reception apparatus of Lee as modified by Ohno and Normet wherein the threshold is 0.6. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that setting a specific numerical threshold is a matter of design choice and involves the optimization of a range. (MPEP 2144.05) to balance system sensitivity against false alarms. Therefore, setting a threshold of 0.6 is a predictable result of calibrating the comparison circuit to detect an abnormality or an “open state” ([0011]; [Application’s Specification]: [0033]) to ensure the diagnostic logic accurately identifies significant power receiving circuit failures in a high-power wireless system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858