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 species A in the reply filed on September 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in New Zealand on November 16, 2011. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A request to retrieve was filed 5/13/24, but no copy can be located in the application file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The Applicants list three WO documents on paragraph 79. None of these documents have been submitted for review.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they do not have the proper status identifiers. The Applicants elected Species A, but none of the non-elected claims are indicated as “withdrawn”.
Further, some claims are “original”, while others are “previously presented”. It is unclear why the Applicants have used two different identifiers when all claims are original and none have been amended.
Claim 1 is objected to because it is unclear how the foreign object detection (FOD) coils can be decoupled from each other. The claim simply lists a plurality of them – there is no other structure recited to show how such a characteristic is possible.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites three indefinite phrases:
“each decoupled [] from a neighbouring one of the detection coils”. It is unclear what is meant by this.
The claim language is unclear as to whether: a) one of the detection coils is decoupled from its direct series-connected neighbor (within the same quadrupole); or b) each coil within a complete quadrupole is decoupled from a coil in a second, separate quadrupole.
In the claim, the plurality of FOD coils can be limited to 2 (two is a plurality). As such, there can be no neighboring quadrupole (there wouldn’t even be the first quadrupole, just two FOD coils). This appears to suggest that option (a) is correct and that the only two FOD coils in the claim are decoupled from each other.
The specification, however, states, “Besides being decoupled from the Tx coils, the FoDx coils are also decoupled from the other neighboring FoDx coils of other cells to minimize detection errors.” (par 79, emphasis added). Paragraph 78 defines a cell as one of the quadrupoles. This completely contradicts option (a).
It is unclear how the Applicants intend for the claim to be interpreted. For the purpose of the art rejection of the claims, interpretation (a) will be used.
“wherein each neighbouring pair of the detection coils in a series connection”. There is no explicit limitation that defines detection coils in series. This wherein clause is descriptive of the coils that are in series – but there are none to begin with.
“are arranged adjacent”. Passive voice should be avoided. The Applicants should use explicit language to define the location of the FOD coils.
Claims 2-10 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
Claim 6 is indefinite because is states “to form a push-pull converter”. Claims 5 and 6 simply name switch pairs and inductor pairs. There is no indication in the claim of how these components are actually interconnected to form any type of circuit.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
A coil is a wound piece of metal. This configuration is already included in the name detection “coil”. Claim 4 simply describes the effect of a foreign object on the detection coil – it does not actually further narrow the structure of the coil itself.
Foreign objects absorb power and this would, inherently affect the voltage of a coil (transmitter, receiver, FOD) in the wireless power transfer system to which they are introduced.
Claim 15 only broadly recites what the coils are “capable of”. The claims do not recite any NFC circuitry. Listing a capability of a passive piece of metal does not further limit the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 4-5, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat (US 2021/0083526) in view of Covic (US 2015/0236513).
With respect to claim 1, Bhat discloses a wireless power transfer system (fig 1-2, 6; par 22-39 and 48) comprising:
at least one field generating power transfer coil (206); and
a plurality of field generating foreign object detection coils (fig 2, items 120; fig 6, items 602) each decoupled from the at least one power transfer coil (par 27, see explanation below), wherein each neighbouring pair of the detection coils in a series connection are arranged adjacent to each other (fig 6, par 48 – adjacent coils are in series).
Bhat disclose a wireless power transfer system with a transmitter (108) and foreign objection detection (FOD) system (116). The FOD system includes its own plurality of detection coils (202, 602) that are in series.
Regarding the limitation of the detection coils being decoupled from the power transfer coil, there are two possible interpretations. First, the claim simply lists the decoupling as a fact. Bhat discloses coils and, therefore, it would achieve the same result (decoupled). Second, the Bhat FOD system is in a removable mat. This means that the mat can be moved away from the transmitter without modifying either set of coils. When the Bhat FOD coils are far away from the power transfer coils, they are “decoupled”.
Bhat does not expressly the detection coils are decoupled from a neighbouring detection coil. Covic discloses a wireless power transfer system comprising a plurality of coils that are decoupled from each other (i.e. neighboring coils) (fig 4a, 5; par 130-133). Covic discloses that coils can be decoupled by overlapping part of their windings (par 133).
Bhat and Covic are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmission system coils. 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 Bhat detection coils to have an overlap, as taught by Covic. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the effect of one coil on another – the FOD coils should react to and detect foreign objects, not other coils.
With respect to claim 2, Covic discloses the detection coils are arranged to form at least one quadrupole (see fig 5).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches each detection coil is configured so that a magnitude of a voltage thereacross reduces in response to a foreign object being present in a magnetic field generated by the respective detection coil (Bhat par 31). As discussed above, the claim is descriptive of the effect of a foreign object on the detection coils – it does not actually recite how the coils are configured (what their structure is). The combination teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1 and, therefore, is “configured” as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, Bhat discloses a plurality of switches (fig 7, item 706; par 49-51), each switch operable to control the detection coils in a respective series connection.
The figure 7 switches is not limited to a parallel detection coil embodiment. The reference is enabling for the switches being used to select series connected coils (fig 6). Bhat, however, only discloses one switch per coil, not a pair. 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 Bhat switches to make a pair. This could mean that the duplicated switch is in series with the original or placed along the negative conductor. The motivation for doing so would have been the obviousness to duplicate parts. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). The claim simply lists a pair of switches (for each coil). There is no description in the claim of where the coils are or what functionality they provide. Simply adding switches, especially ones that are always closed (i.e. a short circuit so that they affectively not even there), would have been within the level of one or ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 15, Bhat discloses the detection coils are capable of near-field communication (NFC). Bhat does not place any prohibition on its coils being “capable” of NFC. The claim only broadly recites a capability and does not recite any actual communication circuitry to carry out NFC functionality.
With respect to claim 19, Bhat discloses a plurality of instrumentation circuits each configured
to measure a DC voltage across a respective one of the detection coils (par 31), and
to compare a peak value of the measured DC voltage with a threshold value (par 32).
With respect to claim 20, Covic discloses each neighbouring pair of the detection coils overlap each other in a same layer (see figs 4-5 for the overlap; see par 139 for the “single layer”).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Covic and Kanakasabai (US 2021/0138917). The rejection of claim 5 is an alternative rejection.
With respect to claim 5, alternatively, Bhat does not expressly disclose a pair of switches for each pair to form a push-pull converter (language taken from claim 6). Kanakasabai discloses a wireless power transfer system (fig 1-3; associated text) comprising:
at least one field generating power transfer coil (206);
a plurality of field generating foreign object detection coils (205); and
a plurality of switch pairs (fig 3B, each inverter is a plurality of switch pairs) each pair operable to control the detection coils.
Bhat discloses that each coil can have its own driver (see fig 4). Kanakasabai discloses that each driver is a plurality of switch pairs (i.e. an inverter). Bhat and Kanakasabai are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely inverter driven coils. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Bhat to include the switch pairs taught by Kanakasabai. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps missing in the Bhat disclosure. Bhat discloses an inverter, but not how to build one. Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art to understand how to construct an inverter.
With respect to claim 6, Kanakasabai discloses a plurality of DC inductors (fig 3A, items 315, 317; par 47, last sentence) associated with a corresponding one of the switch pairs to form a push-pull converter. Kanakasabai teaches that there is an inductor between the inverter and detection coil. Kanakasabai does not expressly disclose a pair of inductors for each switch pair. The duplication of parts is obvious, as discussed above. Id.
Kanakasabai’s switch pairs for an inverter, which is as “push pull converter”. The claim only broadly names the switch pairs and inductor pairs. There is no indication in the claim of how they are actually connected.
With respect to claims 7-8, Bhat discloses the detection coil is a discrete inductor. The Applicants’ specification states, “Each FoDx coil 45 is parallel tuned at fo to form a resonant tank 78” (par 89) and “one resonant tank 88 can be kept unloaded all the time” (par 91). The unloading “can happen by replacing the L is one of the resonant tanks with [] a discrete inductor.” (par 91). The “L” is the inductor of the coil. The specification is essentially replacing one inductor with another.
The only difference between the different series connected parts (88, 90) is that item 88 does not include instrumentation circuit 11. This does not relate to any claimed limitation. The “discrete inductor” language is taught by Bhat’s coil (which is an inductor).
With respect to claim 9, Kanakasabai (fig 3B) modifies Bhat’s series connected detection coils to teach:
an H-bridge (unlabeled inverters) connected to each series connection of the detection coils through the respective switch pair (in the combination, Bhat’s series-connected coils are fed by the Kanakasabai inverters); and
a plurality of filter circuits (333, 335) each connected in series with a respective one of the switch pairs between the H-bridge and the corresponding series connection of the detection coils.
For the purpose of the art rejection of claim 9, the “switch pairs” are disclosed by Bhat’s item 706 (and duplicated as discussed above). Kanakasabai is only relied on for its teaching of the inverter (H-bridge) and filters. When combined, the Kanakasabai inverter would replace the Bhat injector (inverter) and the Kanakasabai filters would be between the Bhat switch pairs and the detection coils.
Bhat and Kanakasabai are analogous as discussed above.
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