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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al. (US 2010/0056098) in view of Wheeland et al. (US 20180102675) and further in view of Enami et al. (US 2018/0090990)
Re Claim 1; Kanno discloses a wireless charging receiving device, (100, fig. 12) comprising
a receiving coil (103a) having a first end and a second end (shown but not labelled);
a first capacitor (103c) having a first electrode (the top part of the capacitor coupled to the bus) electrically connected to the first end of the receiving coil, and (Fig. 12)
a second electrode (portion coupled to 150); (Fig. 12)
a second capacitor (103d the combination of the diode and the capacitor forms a variable capacitor) having a first electrode directly connected to the second electrode of the first capacitor (Fig. 12), and
a second electrode directly connected to the second end of the receiving coil (coupled to the receiver through the diode); and
an anode electrically connected to the second electrode of the first capacitor; (Fig. 12) and first electrode of the second capacitor
a rectifier diode (113a) having an anode electrically connected to the cathode of the clamping diode, and a cathode electrically connected to the positive electrode of the load. (Abstract, Fig. 12)
wherein the first capacitor has a capacitance value greater than that of the second capacitor. (because 103d is variable, the capacitance of the second capacitor can be variable until the first capacitor has a capacitance value greater than that of the second capacitor)
Kanno does not disclose a battery having a positive electrode
a clamping diode having a cathode directly connected to the first electrode of the first capacitor (Fig. 12),
However, Wheelland discloses a battery having a positive electrode (Fig. 8)
a clamping diode (914) having a cathode directly connected to the first electrode of the first capacitor (907) (Fig. 9), the clamping diode is a fast recovery diode capable of withstanding high voltage (914 is a Schottky diode and Schottky diodes are known as a fast recovery diode capable of withstanding high voltage)
it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to have used the clamping diode is to limit or control the voltage at a specific point in a circuit so that the battery can be effectively charged.
The combination does not disclose wherein the rectifier diode is a fast recovery.
However, Enami discloses wherein the rectifier diode is a fast recovery. (Par 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention replace the diode with the rectifier diode is a fast recovery in order to provide more effective rectification to the load.
Re Claim 2; Kanno discloses wherein the second capacitor is an equivalent series resistance capacitor capable of withstanding high voltage, and the second capacitor is a variable capacitor or a varicap diode. (Par 0008, Fig. 12)
Re Claims 4 and 8; Kanno disclosure has been discussed above.
Kanno does not disclose wherein the battery has a voltage of 24 volts to 800 volts and wherein the specific signal frequency is between 1 MHz and 100 MHz.
However, it has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claim 6; Kanno discloses wherein the clamping diode.
Kanno does not disclose it is a Schottky diode.
However, Schottky diode was known to produce less unwanted noise than your typical p-n junction diode and it would have been obvious to have used a Schottky diode in order to reduce noise.
Re Claim 7; Kanno discloses wherein, when the wireless charging receiving device receives a specific signal frequency, current flowing through the receiving coil generates a current resonance and, when there is the current resonance, an internal resistance and an internal capacitance of the battery form a negative impedance conversion to be equivalently presented at a wireless charging transmitting device. (Fig. 12 the claim is merely reciting a effect caused by battery coupled when the receiver is operating at it’s resonant frequency)
Re Claim 9; Kanno discloses further comprising a voltage stabilizing capacitor (113b) having a first electrode electrically connected to the cathode of the rectifier diode, and a second electrode electrically connected to the anode of the clamping diode. (Fig. 12)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al. (US 2010/0056098) in view of Wheelland and further in view of Enami and Mao (US 2019/0148981)
Re Claim 10; Kanno disclosure has been discussed above.
Kanno does not disclose further comprising a filter inductor having a first end electrically connected to the cathode of the rectifier diode, and a second end electrically connected with the positive electrode of the battery.
However, Mao discloses a filter inductor (Lo) having a first end electrically connected to the cathode of the rectifier diode, and a second end electrically connected with the positive electrode of the battery (Bat). (Fig. 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added the filter as shown by Moa in order to remove a high-frequency voltage from the direct current voltage. (Par 0020 of Moa)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 1-2, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-7 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Enami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
04/22/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836