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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Invention I, Species C, in the reply filed on September 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
The Examiner erred in the statement about the claim for foreign priority (see Restriction, pages 6-7). This was based on the misinterpretation that a continuation needed to have been filed within a year of the priority document filing date.
To the contrary, a continuation can be filed at any time during pendency of the PCT priority application (which generally lasts 30 months). MPEP §1828.02. Thus, there is no issue with the Applicants’ claim for priority
That said, the Applicants incorrectly state that “The present U.S. Application [] is a national stage entry of” the PCT application (see reply 9/5/25, page 8). This application is a continuation, not a national stage entry under §371 (see MPEP §1893).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The current title simply repeats the preambles of the claims (including withdrawn claims). It makes no mention of the structure of the wireless power transmitter and sensors, or the functionality of determining the positional relationship between them. “information processing” is not sufficient to adequately summarize the apparatus being claimed (it only broadly refers to a computer; it does not indicate the functionality the computer actually carries out).
Claim Objections
Claims 29-30 are objected to because the limitation of “the second signal corresponding to the first signal” would make more sense if it were recited when the second signal is introduced (it is created in the sensor) as opposed to in the description of the storage unit.
Claims 31-39 are objected to because they do not have the proper status identifier of “withdrawn”.
Claims 40 and 44 are objected to because the first limitation (“a plurality of transmitters are provided”) is redundant to the amended language of claim 29 (“a plurality of transmitters”).
Claims 41 and 43 are objected to because there is no basis in the claim for “the” three or more transmitters. “the” should be deleted. Ideally, the claims would recite, “wherein the plurality of transmitters comprises three” or “comprises three or more”.
Claim 45 is objected to because
the comma (line 4) is not understood. Is the phrase after the “and” part of the “condition” or are the applicants using the comma to start a new phrase.
The claim uses two conflicting phrases to define the wireless frequency signals. First, there is the condition that they are “substantially consecutive” and then the claim recites that they are “intermittently transmitted”. A signal cannot be both consecutive and intermittent.
the claim is replete with passive voice (becomes, are intermittently transmitted). The Applicants should use active functional language to describe how the apparatus acts. This applies to all claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 29-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 29 and 30 each recite “an information processing device being capable of acquiring, from the plurality of sensor devices, the physical quantity measured [] and a second signal…”
But the limitation that defines the plurality of sensors makes no mention of its structural configuration to transmit any information. The claims only define the sensors as capable of measuring quantities and capable of receiving the transmitted power and first signal.
The claims are indefinite because they do not particularly point out or distinctly claim the structure of the sensors.
Claims 31-46 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claims 29-30.
At least claims 29 and 30 are replete with the phrase “capable of”. This makes the claims indefinite because it generally refers to an ability without defining any structure.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114(II).
For example, claim 29 recites the transmitters “being capable of transmitting a different first signal”. This does not indicate what structure is required to do this or what are the structural limits the Applicants intend to seek patent protection over. A generic transmitter (a coil) would be “capable of” transmitting any signal applied to it. It is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over a standard coil, and simply describing how it has an ability to emit more than just power (also communication signals) or if the Applicants intend to seek patent protection over communication circuitry (data source, modulator, etc.). Or if the Applicants intend for the transmitter to be more than just a coil (power source, inverter, etc.).
Claims 31-46 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claims 29-30.
Claims 40-41 are indefinite because there is no antecedent basis in the claim for “the estimation unit acquires signal intensities of a plurality of second signals received by the plurality of transmitters”. Similar language appears in claim 41. Claim 29 recites that the sensors create the second signals and these signals are received by the information processing device. The transmitters have no interaction with the second signal. For the purpose of the art rejection of the claims, the second signal will be interpreted as “received by the information processing device”.
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 29-30, 40-43 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugar (US 8,886,210). The claims are treated in order of dependence (claims 45-46 are out of order – MPEP §608.01(n)).
With respect to claim 29, Sugar discloses an information processing system (fig 1-3; col. 3-7) comprising:
a plurality of transmitters (50(n)) that wirelessly transmit power, wherein each of the transmitters is capable of transmitting a different first signal (col. 3, lines 17-22; the first signal is the outgoing wireless power – as each transmitter is structurally and functionality independent from the others, its outgoing power [first signal] is “different” than the others – i.e. there is no coordination to make them the same – additional support for this interpretation can be found in the language of claim 45);
a plurality of sensor devices (20(n)), respectively arranged at different positions (see fig 1; col. 3, lines 6-9), being capable of measuring predetermined physical quantity (col. 3, lines 14-17; col. 3, line 53 to col. 4, line 41), and having receivers (100) which are capable of receiving a power transmitted from the transmitter and receiving the first signal; and
an information processing device (40, 80) being capable of acquiring, from the plurality of sensor devices, the physical quantity measured by each of the plurality of sensor devices and a second signal corresponding to the first signal transmitted from each of the transmitters (col. 3, lines 14-17; also see fig 1 and the “data from sensors” arrow pointing towards item 40),
wherein the information processing device comprises:
a storage unit (steps 220-240; a memory is also inherent - without one, the Sugar computing device would not be able to retain any of the information it is receiving) storing a first correspondence information associating a position where the transmitter is arranged, the first signal transmitted by the transmitter, and the second signal corresponding to the first signal (col. 3, lines 41-46; col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 20), and
an estimation unit (step 250) estimating that the sensor device, transmitting the second signal, is positioned near the transmitter by identifying, among the transmitters, the transmitter transmitting the first signal corresponding to the second signal transmitted from the sensor device based on the first correspondence information stored in the storage unit (col. 5, line 5 to col. 6, line 48; col. 7, lines 20-34).
The claim only broadly recites that the transmitters are “capable” of transmitting a different first signal. There is no indication in the claim of what structure is necessary to do this or what makes the signals different. The Sugar transmitters are at different locations and act in an uncoordinated manner – transmitter A sends its power from location 1 at time T1; transmitter B sends its power from location 2 at time T2 – this makes 1-T1 different from 2-T2). Also, claim 45 defines the power transmission signal as becoming the first signal (i.e. they are two different names for the same thing).
Sugar discloses the sensors receive the wireless power and measure a “predetermined physical quantity” of that power (received signal strength, RSS). Thus, the RSS is “corresponding” to the first signal.
These measurements are then sent to the central server for analysis. The central server filters and stores the RSS (steps 220-240; “a storage unit”). This information is then used to determine which transmitter is closest to which sensor (step 250; “an estimation unit”).
The claim only broadly recites that the estimation unit identifies the transmitter with the closest distance to the receiver without explaining how this is done. This does not appear to be clarified in any of the dependent claims. The claims recite the identification is “based on” certain information items, but none of the claims recite how the information is used.
With respect to claim 45, Sugar discloses wherein
the power transmission signal becomes the first signal (see art rejection of claim 1 – it is the first signal at all times, including the named conditions) on a condition that the power transmission signal is substantially consecutive wireless frequency signals having predetermined power, and
the wireless frequency signals are intermittently transmitted from the transmitter at a predetermined period (they are transmitted when the transmitter is on).
The two phrases in claim 45 are interpreted as different features. First is the defining condition of when the transmission signal is the first signal. Second, after the “, and” is a new phrase that begins a new topic (not the condition). It simply states a passive feature of the transmitter (intermittent). Sugar anticipates both. Its transmission signal “becomes” (is) the first signal at all times, including the named condition. The Sugar transmitter only transmits when it’s on – this satisfies “intermittent”.
With respect to claim 46, Sugar discloses the sensor device transmits the physical quantity and the second signal simultaneously (both the physical quantity and the second signal are the same thing) with the power transmission signal transmitted from the transmitter (see fig 3). The power transmission signal is necessary for sensor operating power – thus, it would be transmitted simultaneously with the sensor carrying out its signal transmission.
With respect to claim 30 (duplicated limitations from claim 29 are omitted for brevity), Sugar discloses an information processing system (fig 1-3; col. 3-7) comprising a plurality of transmitters (50n), a plurality of sensor devices (20n) and an information processing device (40, 80), wherein the information processing device comprises:
a storage unit (steps 220-240; memory is also inherent, as discussed above) storing a second correspondence information associating a distance between the transmitter and the sensor device, and the second signal corresponding to the first signal (col. 3, lines 41-46; col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 20 – the RSS vector is ”correspondence information” about the distance between transmitter/receiver), and
an estimation unit (step 250) estimating that the sensor device, transmitting the second signal, is positioned near the transmitter by identifying, among the transmitters, the transmitter having the distance closest to the sensor device that transmits the second signal based on the second correspondence information stored in the storage unit (col. 5, line 5 to col. 6, line 48; col. 7, lines 20-34).
Like in claim 29, Sugar uses the sensor measurements (RSS) to determine the distances between transmitters and sensors. This includes determining closest pair from the point of view of the transmitter (claim 29) and sensor (claim 30). The claimed estimation units change the point of view, but the claims are independent (the interpretation of Sugar for one claim does not affect the interpretation for the other claim) and only broadly recite “estimating”. There is no indication in the claim of how the estimation is carried out.
With respect to claim 40, Sugar discloses wherein
a plurality of transmitters are provided (50(n)),
the second correspondence information stored in the storage unit is an information associating the distance between the transmitter and the sensor device (RSS observation vector; see col. 7), and signal intensity of the second signal corresponding to the first signal (Sugar discloses the second signal is an RSS of the first signal), and
the estimation unit acquires signal intensities of a plurality of the second signals received by the plurality of transmitters (the second signal is an intensity value – RSS), and identifies, among the plurality of transmitters, the transmitter having the distance closest to the sensor device that transmits the second signal based on the plurality of signal intensities and the second correspondence information (step 250).
With respect to claim 41, Sugar discloses wherein
the three or more transmitters are provided (see fig 1 – Sugar does not provide an upper limit to the number of transmitters), and
the estimation unit:
acquires signal intensities of the plurality of second signals received by the at least three or more transmitters (each sensor provides an RSS [second signal] for each first signal received from the different transmitters),
identifies, among the plurality of transmitters, the transmitter having the distance closest to the sensor device that transmits the second signal based on the plurality of signal intensities and the second correspondence information (step 250), and
identifies a position where the sensor device having the distance closest to the transmitter is arranged (all of the distances between transmitters/sensors are identified).
With respect to claim 42, Sugar discloses the estimation unit acquires signal intensities of the second signals received by the transmitters [sic – incorrect, the second signals are received by the information processing device] (Sugar 40 receives the RSS), and identifies, among the transmitters, the transmitter having the distance closest to the sensor device that transmits the second signal based on (see below) whether or not the signal intensity is a predetermined threshold value or more based on the signal intensities and the second correspondence information (step 250 – all distances are identified).
The claim recites that the closest distance is identified “based on” if the signal intensity is greater than or equal to a threshold. The claim does not explicit recite the actual creation/storage of a threshold and the actual comparison of the second signal (or its intensity) to this threshold. Being “based on” a threshold does not require that this threshold is actually used.
“based on” a threshold is descriptive of relative values – it is not an explicit structural or functional limitation. For whatever value the Sugar RSS has (for the transmitter closest to a particular sensor), it is inherently greater than or equal to some “threshold”.
With respect to claim 43, Sugar discloses the recited limitations, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 41. Sugar further discloses the second correspondence information stored in the storage unit is an information associating a position where the sensor device is arranged and signal intensity of the second signal corresponding to the first signal (this is what the Sugar RSS is). The Sugar RSS is “correspondence information” that “associates” the closeness of a sensor to a transmitter – the closer they are, the higher the received signal strength (RSS). Wireless power strength decreases with distance.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugar in view of Zeine (US 2014/0217967).
Sugar discloses the plurality of transmitters and the estimation unit that identifies the transmitter with the closest distance, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 40. Sugar does not expressly disclose the estimation unit acquires angles of arrival of the plurality of second signals.
Zeine discloses that it is known to analyze incoming wireless power signals to determine their incoming angle of reception (par 248). Sugar and Zeine are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless signal transmission. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Sugar to include the angle analysis, as taught by Zeine. The motivation for doing so would have been to know more about the location of where the signal came from. Sugar’s RSS gives distance. But distance can be in any direction (effectively a sphere with a radius equal to the distance). Zeine modifies Sugar to have the location also defined by a direction (i.e. the complex conjugate of the received signal angle).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836