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
Applicants' arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the “prior art” designation – the discussion and equations presented in the specification (pages 11-12) are inherent and necessarily follow from any analysis of the CLR circuit of figure 1. Figure 1 shows passive circuit elements: capacitor, inductor, resistor. There is no support for an argument that tries to separate the figure (admitted as known and conventional) from the description of effects on voltages and currents in the figure. Once AC power is applied to these passive circuit elements, there is no possible way to make them behave any differently.
Further support can be found in the websites cited in the enclosed PTO-892 form. In the website named “Series RLC Circuit and RLC Series Circuit Analysis”, the author provides the same voltage equation (see three equations at the top of page 4) as the Applicants (specification, first equation at the top of page 12). The voltage source is equal to the sum of the individual voltages of the three components. This is clearly conventional and known.
The Applicants’ second equation (page 12) is just the equation for current through a capacitor. Again, conventional.
The equation solving for ω1 is shown as conventional in the second website, “Series Resonance in a Series RLC Resonant Circuit” at page 5. The equation for resonance in a LC (with or without an R) is well known in the art. It is unclear how the Applicants can maintain otherwise.
Furthermore, the discussion in the specification begins with “there falls a voltage” and “which causes flowing of an induction current” (top of page 12). This language clearly indicates a passive and inherent effect – not any distinct action or functionality that only the Applicants have discovered, created or disclosed.
If the Applicants intend to argue that the figure is conventional but any description of it is not, they are invited to present actual evidence to support their position. This should include supporting documentation for how known passive circuit elements (capacitor, inductor, resistor), in a known and conventional configuration/layout, can have voltage and current equations that are not inherent and well known electrical properties.
Regarding the art rejection, the Applicants’ comments regarding the different voltage sources are not persuasive (Remarks, page 19). The Applicants’ confusion as to the language of their own claims does not show any error in the art rejection. As mentioned during prosecution of the parent application (see at least Final 6/8/20) and noted in the Non-Final Rejection in this application (see bottom of page 8), the “voltage source” is not the amplifier’s DC input power. Rather, it is the switching signal provided to the amplifier’s transistors/switches.
Support for this is found in the language of the claim itself. Claim 1 recites that the first (and second) voltage source is “designed to generate the first input signal”. This first input signal is the switching command for the amplifier (see claims 13 and 20; specification pages 14-15, bridging paragraph; figure 3). The specification states that the input signals are 316 and 318 – these are clearly the switching commands – not the DC input voltage. And both input signals come from the same control device (specification, page 14, line 14; original claim 20; new claim 23).
At best, figure 3 shows that the second input signal is the inverse of the first. But this is not the same as defining them as having two completely different sources.
The Applicants’ argument is not persuasive because they are focused on Chakrabarti’s “input pad” – i.e. the DC input for power to be inverted – not the commands to switch/toggle the amplifier/inverter. Chakrabarti can modify the rest of the combination to have two amplifiers that share a common DC source, as this does not correspond to any claimed limitation.
The only DC source shown in the figures is Ub (see fig 3). There is no corresponding written description support in the originally filed application for how the bottom amplifier (306) can have a separate DC input (that is not Ub). This was discussed during prosecution of the parent application and has not been addressed or rebutted. See also the Advisory Action (8/25/23) and Non-Final (11/27/23, §112(a) rejection on page 7) in the parent application.
The Applicants contend that Chakrabarti “only discloses that it is obvious to duplicate amplifiers in a narrow application” (Remarks, page 20). This is not persuasive, as it is an unduly narrow interpretation. Through Kirchhoff’s Current Law, the skilled artisan would have understood the benefits of parallel current paths. Chakrabarti takes advantage of this known Law – it can be applied anywhere there is current flow to split the current between multiple branches.
Regarding claims 7-9, the combination would obviously include applying any variations in the Irish “first” input signal to the combination’s duplicated “second” input signal as well. The claims only broadly refers to first “and” second signals – there is no indication in the claims of when/why the other input signal would be varied (i.e. there is no requirement that the variation be simultaneous or purposeful timed for both amplifiers). Over the lifetime of the combination’s device, it would have been obvious that the Irish variations would be applied to both input signals at least once.
Regarding claim 10, Irish explicitly discloses a variable resistor. Thus, it has a variable (i.e. temporally changes) resistivity. The ability to change the resistance obviously indicates that the reference includes “a control connection” to do so. No inherency arguments were made.
Regarding claim 13, the Applicants do not dispute that Irish discloses its input signals includes rises and falls. These signal events happen and, therefore, occur over a time or time “interval”. Even a rise/fall that appears to be instantaneous is not so – all events take time to happen. The Applicants’ contention that such an interpretation is impermissible (Remarks, page 22) is not persuasive. The Applicants could have amended the claim to remove the ambiguity in “in a time interval”, but they have not.
Furthermore, the claim language does not define the size of the interval and then require that the rise/fall occur over the entire span of the interval. There is no explicit language in the claim, despite the Applicants general disagreement, that the rise/fall can’t be fast or quick (as taught by Irish).
The art rejection is maintained.
The priority, specification, claim and figure 1 objections are withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it is unclear how an excitation current (the AC output of the amplifiers) changes the resistance of the LCR circuit that is downstream (page 15, line 4). These components follow Ohm’s Law, which is that voltage equals current times resistance. There does not appear to be any similar law that shows that current through a capacitor, inductor or resistor can cause their resistances to change.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because the recitation of “the first input signal has” should be “the first input signal to have”.
Claim 22 is objected to because it is unclear how the excitation current (AC output) of an amplifier can change the resistance of a downstream circuit. The resistance of a circuit is not dependent on voltage or current. Ohm’s Law states that voltage equals current times resistance – not that voltage (or current) causes a change in resistance. The specification flatly states that this happens – supporting documentation is requested to explain how this is possible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20: There is no support in the originally filed application for the amended limitation that “a control device configured to instruct the at least one first voltage source to generate the first input signal” and the same language for the second input signal.
The “control device” is mentioned once in the specification – “The first input signal 316 and the second input signal 318 can be provided by a control device.” (original specification, page 14, line 14). The control device itself provides the first/second input signals – it does not control some other source to do so.
The specification does not disclose any other “sources” for the origin of input signals 316/318. The specification only provides written description support for one source of the input signals.
For the purpose of the art rejection of the claim, the single control device will be interpreted as the shared/common voltage source for the two input signals.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 21012/0212074) in view of Irish (US 2013/0043951) and in further view of Chakrabarti (US 2014/0028393).
With respect to claim 1, Uchida discloses a medical implant system (fig 1-3, 5, 9, 17; par 8, 35-119, 155-179) comprising:
a medical implant (par 8) implanted into or configured to be implanted into a body, the implant including a receiver (200d); and
a base station (110d) configured to wirelessly transmit energy to the receiver, the base station including a control circuit (see citations below), the control circuit including:
an electric resonant circuit (fig 1, items 110 and 120; fig 2) for transmitting the energy to the receiver, the electric resonant circuit including:
a first electric amplifier (162) with its output connected to an electro-conductive connection (arrow after 162); and
a resonant circuit (110 and 120) connected in series with the first electric amplifier via the electro-conductive connection (par 69), the resonant circuit is separate and spaced from the first electric amplifier (see figures);
an evaluation device (140, 180) configured to compare the energy transmitted to the receiver with a desired energy value (par 140; “reference amount of power”), the evaluation device configured to determine the energy transmitted based on a modulation property of a recoupling signal sent from the receiver and received with the electric resonant circuit (par 137-140; the modulation in the receiver is propagated back to the transmitter where it is demodulated); and
wherein, in response to a result of the comparison, the control circuit is configured to change a resonance frequency of the electric resonance circuit to modify an energy entry in a receiver resonant circuit (par 46-47, 74-79, 179); and
wherein the receiver is configured to receive the energy signal (because of its receiver 220 and that the purpose of the reference is successful energy transmission) and send the recoupling signal (par 137-140).
Uchida discloses a transmitter that uses reflected modulated power to determine transmitted energy. Uchida’s reflected modulated power is a “recoupling signal”, as it is created by active control (i.e. impedance modulation) in the receiver and propagated back to the transmitter (par 137-140). This amount of transmitted energy is then compared with a desired threshold (par 140). This desired threshold is set to differentiate between HIGH and LOW data bits that have been modulated by the receiver. Based on this comparison, the Uchida transmitter communicates back to the receiver. This communication is accomplished by changing the transmission frequency (to thereby change how much power is transmitted, which the receiver demodulates into data bits; see par 46-47, 179).
As previously noted (and not addressed, corrected, or rebutted), the claim first defines a comparison of energy to a desired value, but then defines that energy as actually being based on energy reflected from the receiver. Thus, the “energy transmitted” is not a measurement of outgoing energy, but is rather a description of energy received.
Uchida does not expressly disclose a second amplifier, their separate voltage sources (input control signal sources, not DC voltage sources of power to be inverted), or a shared electro-conductive connection. Uchida also discloses its wireless transmitter is made up of an inductive coil (120) and a disconnected resonance coil (110) and does not expressly disclose that resonant circuit 120 itself is in series with the electro-conductive connection.
Irish discloses a wireless power system comprising a receiver (108) and a base station (fig 1, 6, 10-11; par 60-63, 80-88) including a control circuit (at least fig 10, item 1010; fig 11, item 1110) that comprises:
an electric resonant circuit for transmitting energy to a receiver, the electric resonant circuit comprising:
an electric resonant circuit (650) for transmitting energy to the receiver, the electric resonant circuit including:
a first electric amplifier (624), an output of the first electric amplifier connected to the single electro-conductive connection (top left node of 650; the filter 626 is optional and is, therefore, interpreted as not present),
a resonant circuit (650) connected in series with the first amplifier via the single electro-conductive connection, the resonant circuit is separate and spaced from the first electric amplifier (see fig 6);
at least one first voltage source (602) connected to the first electric amplifier; and
Irish discloses a wireless power transmitter with a class E amplifier in series with an CLR resonant circuit. Irish shows more detail in the construction and connection of the amplifier, electro-conductive connection and resonant circuit than is present in Uchida. Uchida and Irish are analogous to the claimed invention, since they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters operating at a resonant frequency. At the time of the invention by the applicants, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify or replace Uchida’s transmitter (amplifier and resonant circuit) with the transmitter taught by Irish. The motivation for doing so would have been the simple substitution of one known device for another to obtain predictable results. Uchida discloses an amplifier, but does not get into specifics of how it is constructed and the reference uses an intermediate inductive coil (120). Irish discloses that it is known to configure wireless power systems to include a specific type of amplifier (class E) directly coupled (in series) to the resonant circuit. Both are successful circuits to provide wireless power transmission. Thus, the skilled artisan would have looked to Irish to “fill in the blanks” of the Uchida amplifier disclosure or replace its resonant circuit – each with a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art contains a device which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of Uchida’s inductive-resonant circuits (110/120) with other components (only a resonant circuit). The substituted resonant circuit and its function were known in the art. The skilled artisan, knowing that Uchida needs a resonant transmitter capable of transmitting a variable frequency AC signal could have substituted its transmitter (110 and 120) for a resonant circuit only, as taught by Irish. The substitution would have been predictable because they are both commonly known components to wireless transmit AC frequencies. MPEP §2143(B).
The combination (Uchida and Irish) only discloses one amplifier. Chakrabarti discloses that it is known to duplicate class E amplifiers so that there are two in parallel (par 51). This would result in a first Irish amplifier and a “separate and spaced” second Irish amplifier. Both amplifiers would be connected to the same DC power input (which has no corresponding part in the claim) and their outputs connected to the same single electro-conductive connection. This duplication would also result in “at least one second voltage source connected to the [duplicated] second electric amplifier and not connected to the first electric amplifier, the at least one second voltage source designed to generate a second input signal and provide the second input signal to the second electric amplifier. The voltage source and its input signal are used to control the on/off (i.e. toggling) of the switches within the amplifier – they are not part of the DC input power that is to be inverted by the amplifier. Chakrabarti discloses two amplifiers, but is silent as to whether these two amplifiers have their own input signal source or share one – thus, both options are equally plausible. The skilled artisan would have considered that the Chakrabarti modification come with separate input signal sources. (i.e. to toggle the amplifier switches at specific times).
Irish and Chakrabarti are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely class E amplifiers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to duplicate the Irish amplifier to be two in parallel, as taught by Chakrabarti. The motivation for doing so would have been because the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result in produced. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). Chakrabarti discloses the expected result of dividing the input power equally between the (now) two amplifiers. This would obviously result in a reduced current through each amplifier, thereby allowing the circuit designer to user components with lower current ratings or to increase the total current passing through the system (up to double what could be carried by just one amplifier).
With respect to claim 2, Uchida discloses the receiver includes a receiver resonant circuit having a natural frequency (fig 1, item 210; par 50-52); and wherein the control circuit is configured to approximate the resonance frequency of the electric resonant circuit to the receiver’s natural frequency if the energy transmitted to the receiver is less than the desired energy value (par 46-47, 74-79, 179; see also fig 18).
With respect to claim 3, Uchida discloses the receiver includes a receiver resonant circuit having a natural frequency (fig 1, item 210; par 50-52); and wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust the resonance frequency of the electric resonant circuit away from the receiver’s natural frequency if the energy transmitted to the receiver is greater than the desired energy value (par 46-47, 74-79, 179; see also fig 18).
Uchida is “configured” to do both actions – make the two frequencies the same and move them apart. In figure 18, Uchida can switch from plot 2a to plot 2b – one movement would be moving towards a common frequency (claim 2), the other movement would be away from a common frequency (claim 3).
With respect to claim 4 and 21, Irish (fig 10, par 80-82 and/or fig 11, par 83-88) discloses the control circuit is configured to change the resonance frequency of the electric resonant circuit by changing at least one of the first input signal or (as modified) the second input signal. Irish discloses the timing of the input signal (to either amplifier) controls the resonant frequency.
With respect to claim 5, Irish discloses the resonant circuit includes an inductor (614), a capacitor (612) and a resistive element (618) connected in series with each other.
With respect to claim 6, Irish discloses the control circuit is configured to change the resonance frequency by changing at least one of the first input signal or the second input signal (see art rejection of claim 4) to change a resistance of the resonant circuit (see below).
The claim is directed to the structure of the control circuit to change the first/second input signals. The rest of the claim (“to change a resistance…”) is a stated effected (not a distinct control functionality). Since Irish discloses the structure and input signal control, it follows that the reference (and the combination) would have the same effect on the resistance.
With respect to claims 7-9 and 11, Irish discloses the control circuit changes the resistance of the resistor by at least one of:
varying a conductance of switching edges of the first/second input signals (par 80-81, phase detector 1010 delays the timing/conductance of when the input signal begins; or par 85, 88 – the timing of the gate voltage is controlled in response to measured efficiency; Irish is modified to have this control exist for both the first and duplicated second amplifiers); or
changing a phase displacement of the first/second input signals (par 80-81 – obvious in view of the duplicated Irish amplifiers – see below. Each amplifier has its own phase detector, thereby presenting unequal delays onto the two gate signals. This causes a “phase displacement”).
By being configured to carry out either of the above actions, Irish is configured to change an energy loss across the resistive element (claim 11).
Within the combination, the Irish disclosure of varying the input signal to its one amplifier would be applied to both Chakrabarti amplifiers. Thus, the combination teaches varying both first and second input signals.
With respect to claim 10, Irish discloses the resonant circuit includes a temporally changes resistivity (its arrow indicates that it is a variable resistor) and a control connection (obvious to control its variable resistance) to receive a control signal to change the resistivity. Since the Irish resistor is adjustable, it obviously has a “control connection” to let someone or something make adjustments. The claim only broadly refers to a connection (i.e. input) – it does not recite when/why such adjustments would be made or by who.
With respect to claim 12, Irish discloses the control circuit is configured to change the energy loss within a predetermined time interval that is less than an oscillation period of an excitation current (par 80-88). Irish can control the switching edge of a single pulse or the duty cycle of a single pulse. Thus, its effects would be within a time interval that is less than a full oscillation period.
Further, the claim simply states an effect that is due to the control circuit’s structure (configured to). There is no indication in the claim of how the control circuit is configured to do this – what structure (that is not already present in claim 1 or taught by the combination) gives it this benefit?
With respect to claim 13, Irish (fig 6) discloses the at least one first voltage source is designed to generate the first input signal has [to have] alternative rising or falling procession in a time interval and has a constant progression in another time interval.
Irish discloses the input signal “has” pulses that include changes from low-to-high (“alternative rising or falling procession”) and include flat/constant portions (“constant progression”). Thus, the reference obviously discloses a “source” to generate this type of signal. Uchida’s amplifier would appear to have the same type of pulse input.
With respect to claims 14-19, the combination discloses a single electro-conductive connection (Irish, left side of 650) and that the two amplifiers are positioned upstream from it (see Irish fig 6; the duplicated amplifier would be on the left side of figure 6 as well) and the electro-conductive connection is downstream of the amplifiers (redundant), with the single electro-conductive connection coupled between the two amplifiers and the resonant circuit (see Irish fig 6). This T-junction at the single electro-conductive connection is interpreted as being in parallel with the two amplifiers and in series with the resonant circuit (claim 19).
With respect to claim 20, the combination teaches the first/second amplifiers and the first/second voltage sources to control the timing of when the switches within each amplifier are commanded to toggle on/off. For example, the format/shape of the input signal is taught by Irish at figure 6. This obviously includes a source to generate this signal. Renaming this source as “a control device” is obvious and not further limiting.
Thus, combination teaches a control device configured to instruct the first/second voltage sources (i.e. itself) to generate the first/second input signals to the first/second electric amplifiers, respectively.
With respect to claim 21, the combination teaches the control circuit is configured to change the resonance frequency of the electric resonant circuit by changing the first input signal and the signal input signal (see art rejections of claim 4). The analysis of the combination against claim 4 applies to “both” signals (not just at least one of them as recited in claim 4).
With respect to claim 22, the combination teaches the control circuit is configured to change the resonance frequency by changing the first/second input signals to change a resistance of the resonant circuit.
The combination teaches the structure of claim 1. The specification flatly states that “varying an excitation current can cause change in the electric resistance 314. The excitation current can be caused again by the first input voltage 316 [] and the second input voltage [].” (page 13 middle paragraph). Since the combination teaches the same structure of the claim, then it follows that it would have the same effects from “excitation current”. The resonant circuit is passive (inductor, capacitor, resistor) – if the Applicants resonant circuit reacts to AC power by changing its resistance, then the same can be said for the combination’s resonant circuit.
Since the combination teaches varying the first/second input signals and controlling the resonance frequency – it would obviously produce the same passive effect of changing the effective resistance of the resonant circuit.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Irish, Chakrabarti and Paul (US 8,149,064).
The combination (namely Irish fig 6) discloses the first voltage source is designed to generate the first input signal having rising progression in a first time interval, a constant progression in a second time interval, and a falling progression in a third time interval. The combination teaches a second voltage source to provide the second input signal (to the duplicated second amplifier), but does not expressly disclose it is complimentary (opposite logic) to the first.
Paul discloses a circuit with two amplifiers (see fig 4) that comprises a first (Vip) and second (Vin) voltage sources wherein the second is complimentary to the first (fig 5; col. 4-5, bridging paragraph).
The combination (of the three references) and Paul are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely amplifiers to provide AC power. 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 combination to include a second, opposite logic, voltage source to provide gating signals to the second, duplicated amplifier. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce desired AC output. The gating signals can be in-phase, shifted or 180 degrees out of phase (i.e. complimentary as taught by Paul). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to consider all three and select the one that best suits their needs.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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