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 October 3, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 and 42 under Bae and Chen 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Uchimoto (cited in the PTO-892 form 7/3/25) and Nose (JP 58094195). Uchimoto teaches a wireless power receiver with impedance modulation (i.e. “in-band”) communication and an overvoltage protection (OVP) function. Both the data and OVP are fed to “an overvoltage protector” (fig 6, items M21, M22, M31, M32). The existence of an OVP overrides the data modulation (par 65). Nose teaches that an overvoltage signal can override a data signal through the use of an OR gate (see fig 1, item 8; English abstract).
The §112(b) and (d) rejections are withdrawn. The drawing and claim objections are withdrawn. The objection to the title is maintained.
Drawings
Replacement figure 5 was received on October 3, 2025. This drawing is acceptable and will be entered.
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.
With the exception of the word “mobile”, the new title adds redundance to what was already present (and even “mobile” and “movable” are redundant). The new title does not add anything of substance to inform the reader about the aspect of wireless power to which the claims are directed.
The “inductive transfer of electric power” is a misnomer – as “electricity” is not actually transferred (any electron on one side does not pass to the other). The inductive transfer is of magnetic power/energy (through the magnetic field created by the primary coil).
Next, any inductive transfer would clearly include a primary/transmitter side and a secondary/receiver side. Adding names for these parts does not further narrow the title.
Each of the primary/secondary conductor systems are “of the installation” – which is redundant to how the title starts (“Installation for…”).
The secondary part is both “mobile” and “movable relative to the primary” – these are redundant phrases. Even if this were more directly written, that the two halves of the wireless power transfer system are movable relative to each other is still overly broad. Most wireless power transfer applications (let alone publications) deal with physically separate, and movable, secondary devices.
Lastly, “an method for operating an installation” should be operating “the” installation, as the method is about the specific installation already mentioned not just any one.
Any new title should mention wireless data communication, overvoltage protection and how both functions use the same protection device. This is the specific aspect of wireless power to which the claims are directed. The proposed title only generally refers to anything in H02J50/00 and H04B5/00 – this is too broad.
The specification is objected to because the publication number of the WO reference is incorrect (see page 1, line 11), it is “WO 2020/002240”. The specification incorrectly lists the year as 2022.
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 16-46 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.
Claim 16 (last paragraph) incorrectly recites that the first OR-gate includes “a second input connected to the sensor” and that “the sensor adapted to supply the output signal to the second input of the first OR-gate”. The underlined should be “the first comparison device”.
The claim recites, “a sensor … adapted to provide a signal to the first comparison device, the first comparison device adapted to generate an output signal …”. The first OR-gate receives (as a second input) the output signal from the first comparison device – not the sensor.
Claims 17-46 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 16.
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 16-26, 28-42 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimoto (US 2018/0131234) in view of Nose (JP 58094195). All claims that recite “and/or” will be interpreted as “or”.
With respect to claim 16, Uchimoto discloses an installation (fig 1, 3A, 6-7; par 4-5, 17, 62-65, 84-101), comprising:
a primary conductor system (figure 6 does not include a transmitter, but it is reasonable to conclude that one exists and that it could have the structure of item 200 in figure 1 – the claim only broadly names the primary – it has no defining structural features);
a mobile part (all of fig 6) movable relative to the primary conductor system (see fig 7; par 100) and including a secondary winding (Ls) connected to capacitors (Cs and Cd and any of C21, C22, C31, C32 when their respective switches are closed), forming an oscillating circuit, the primary conductor system adapted to inductively transfer electric power to the secondary winding (redundant to the “secondary windings” – this “adapted to” phrase does not introduce any additional structure – it is descriptive of the inductance of the winding and the connected capacitors);
a sensor (the dark circle immediately below the square marked RECT [see top-left of fig 6 and par 91]) adapted to capture a value of a physical variable (voltage) arranged on the mobile part and to provide a signal to a first comparison device
the first comparison device (430) adapted to generate an output signal depending on a result of a comparison of the value (+ input) with a threshold value (- input);
an overvoltage protector (any/all of M21, M22, M31, M32) of the mobile part adapted to be activated and/or deactivated depending on an actuation signal (par 93, 96); and
a communication circuit (within 440; see par 93) adapted to generate a first data flow signal to be transferred from the mobile part to the primary conductor system;
wherein the mobile part is adapted to supply the first data flow signal to the overvoltage protector device in response to the (sensed) value not exceeding the threshold value to transfer the data flow signal from the mobile part to the primary conductor system (see fig 3A, T1; par 63-64, 93),
wherein the mobile part is adapted to activate the overvoltage protector is response to the value exceeding the threshold (fig 3A, T2; par 65).
Uchimoto discloses a wireless power receiver that includes an oscillating (it appears the Applicants mean “resonant”) circuit that includes a winding/coil and capacitor.
Uchimoto then discloses an overvoltage protector (M21, M22, M31, M32). These transistors operate, under the control of 430, to regulate the capacitance of the oscillation circuit. This includes using M31-32 for communication and M21-22 for overvoltage protection. Support for interpreting four transistors as satisfying the limitation of the overvoltage protector can be found in the language of claims 16 and 23. Claim 16 recites that the overvoltage protector is “adapted to be activated and/or deactivated” (emphasis added). To be activated “and” deactivated implies the presence of a plurality of controllable devices. Claim 23 recites that the overvoltage protector “includes a controllable switch and/or triac”. First, “includes” is an open-ended transitional phrase and does not exclude other, unnamed, components. MPEP §2111.03(I). Second, “the and/or” implies that there can be at least two switches. While the reference isn’t relied upon for discloses two different types of switches (switch, triac), the language of the claim does support the interpretation that there can be a plurality of switches.
Uchimoto then discloses that the receiver/secondary operates to send data during normal times and, when there is an overvoltage, the data transmission “becomes impossible”. Uchimoto does not expressly disclose that this impossibility is due to an OR-gate. Nose discloses an installation (fig 1; English abstract) comprising a first OR-gate (8) adapted to generate an actuation signal (output of 8), the first OR-gate including a first input connected to a communication circuit (I2) to receive a first data flow signal and a second input connected to an overvoltage output signal (I1), the first OR-gate adapted to supply the data signal when the overvoltage signal is LOW and to output the overvoltage signal when the overvoltage signal is HIGH (see abstract).
When combined, the Nose OR-gate would complete the Uchimoto functionality of letting the data flow signal be output during normal times (T1) and preventing it (“becomes impossible”) during an overvoltage event (T2). Uchimoto and Nose are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely overvoltage override signals. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Uchimoto to include an OR-gate, as taught by Nose. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps missing in the Uchimoto disclosure. Uchimoto states the desire to stop data flow during an overvoltage, but does not describe the circuitry necessary to make it happen. Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art to understand how to successfully make one signal prevent the output of a second.
With respect to claim 17, Uchimoto discloses the primary conductor system includes a primary winding (fig 1, item 202) and/or primary conductor (any of the top/bottom conductors that feed power to/from the winding) arranged in an elongated manner in the installation. The Uchimoto winding (202) is long. The conductors that feed it are also long. It is unclear where the “primary conductor” is intended to be – this is the first/only time it is mentioned in the claims. Adding random wires (connectors) to be something that is “long” within the Uchimoto transmitter would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 18, Uchimoto discloses an AC current having a frequency of between 10kHz and 1MHz and/or between 20kHz and 100kHz is impressed into the primary conductor system (see fig 1). There are two possible interpretations.
First, “is impressed” is passive voice language that describes what is happening to the primary conductor system. It does not recite what the primary conductor system is actually doing. Even if this were clarified, it is an apparatus claim - there are no structural limitations of the primary conductor system defined in any of claims 16 or 18. There is nothing to create or impress these frequencies. Thus, “is impressed” is descriptive. Since Uchimoto discloses the primary conductor system, it can be “impressed” with any desired frequence without modifying its structure.
Second, Uchimoto discloses an AC frequency is impressed (from inverter 204), just doesn’t disclose any specific frequency values. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select from the listed ranges. This could be as simple as trial and error (to see which frequency works best, or coincidentally selecting from the listed frequencies). Also, the specific frequency would have predictable effects on the system, namely as the receiver has a specific LC tuning that needs to be matched for effective/efficient power transfer. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered any frequency that satisfies efficiency requirements. MPEP §2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 19, Uchimoto disclose the physical variable includes voltage (RECT).
With respect to claims 20-21, Uchimoto discloses that a voltage provided to and/or a current impressed into the primary conductor system is modulated with a second data stream (via voltage modulator 220; par 10).
With respect to claim 22, Uchimoto discloses the second data stream is filtered out and/or demodulated (450; par 89) from a curve of a current flowing through the secondary winding captured by a sensor or from a curve of a level for voltage induced in the secondary winding or for a voltage occurring at the oscillation circuit captured by a sensor. The repeated use of “or” in the claim means that the prior art is only required to disclose one of the options. Uchimoto discloses the second (from the transmitter) data stream is demodulated from a curve of current flowing through the secondary winding (which then flows through the rectifier) and captured by a sensor (at the AC1/AC2 pins, as per paragraph 89).
The Examiner notes that no part of claim 22 explicitly introduces a filter, a demodulator or a sensor as any distinct structural components in the mobile part. The claim reads as descriptive of events that happens in the mobile part. Such language is not further limiting for an apparatus claim.
With respect to claim 23, Uchimoto discloses the overvoltage protector includes a controllable switch (any one or more of M21, M22, M31, M32) and/or a triac adapted to detune (via capacitors C21, C22, C31, C32) the oscillating circuit and/or short circuit at least a partial region of the oscillating circuit.
With respect to claim 24, Uchimoto discloses the capacitors (Cs, Cd) are connected in series with the secondary winding. Cs is clearly in series. Cd is in series with the secondary winding (forming a loop). Cd is in parallel with the power lines leading from the secondary winding to the rectifier, but the claim language does not prohibit this.
Alternatively, at the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to split the Uchimoto capacitor Cs into a plurality of parallel capacitors (such that each is in series with the secondary winding). The motivation for doing so would have been because it is known in the art that parallel capacitors have their capacitances summed. The skilled artisan, knowing this, would have been motivated to divide the Uchimoto capacitor (Cs) into a plurality of capacitors, so long as their capacitances summed to the original value of Cs. Such a change would not affect the electrical functionality of the system.
With respect to claim 25, Uchimoto discloses an AC/DC converter (M11, M12, M13, M14) having a DC-side connection (its right side) and an AC-side connection (its left side), and a smoothing capacitor (306) connected in parallel to the DC-side connection, the series circuit arranged and/or connected at the AC-side connection (L2, Cs and Cd are on the AC side), the DC-side connection adapted to feed a consumer (not claimed – this “adapted to” language is redundant to the rectifier output being an electrical conductor to “feed” electricity to anything connected to it – also, see Uchimoto item 502 and 504).
With respect to claim 26, the partial region is part of an unselected “or” option from claim 23. Further defining this region does not further narrow the option that was selected (that the overvoltage protector detunes the oscillation circuit).
With respect to claim 28, Uchimoto discloses the mobile part includes an actuator (440) adapted to feed an actuation signal (on any of S10, S11) to the controllable switch, the actuator being connected to one or more sensors (not claimed – any sensors are connected via 460). That the actuator is connected to sensors is not the same as an explicit limitation defining that the mobile part “comprises” or “includes” the one or more sensors. As the Applicants have used these transitional phrases throughout the claims, the absence of one here is interpreted as intentional. The sensors are descriptive – they are not distinctly claimed.
With respect to claim 29, Uchimoto discloses the actuator is adapted to generate the actuation signal [in] dependence on a values [sic] of physical variables of the mobile part captured by the sensor (par 92, 97).
With respect to claims 30-33, describing what an unclaimed sensor is adapted to detect does not further limit the installation. As discussed above, claim 28 is descriptive of what the actuator is connected to – the claim does not explicitly introduce the sensor(s) as distinct claimed element(s).
With respect to claim 34, Uchimoto discloses the sensor (now referring back to the sensor of claim 16 – as claim 34 does not depend from claim 28 and include any mention of the actuator-connected sensor(s)) is adapted to capture a value of a voltage (VRECT) applied at the DC-side of the AC/DC converter.
With respect to claim 35, Uchimoto discloses the sensor is adapted to detect a value of current flowing through the secondary winding (via ILOAD and/or VRECT).
Uchimoto disclose a current sensor (for ILOAD, which is input to 460). This sensor is “adapted to detect a value of current flowing”. Where this sensor is placed does not further limit its structure. The claim does not recite where the sensor is connected – and only broadly hints at its adaptation to detect current.
Uchimoto also discloses the sensing of Vrect (par 55). This voltage is proportional to the current flowing through the secondary winding (through Ohm’s Law, V=IR and voltage is “a value” of the current.
With respect to claim 36, Uchimoto discloses the sensor is adapted to capture (synonymous with “detect”, as used in claim 35) a value of the current entering or exiting the DC-side connection (both ILOAD and VRECT are on the DC-side – the same analysis of claim 35 applies here).
With respect to claim 37, Uchimoto discloses the actuator has a second comparison device (par 97, first sentence “The main controller 440 compares”) adapted to compare a value of a physical variable captured by the (claim 28) sensor (Vrect) with a threshold value (par 97, first sentence, “with the sub-threshold VTH), the actuator adapted to generate the actuation signal for the controllable switch in dependence on an output signal of the second comparison device (par 97) and/or in dependence on a result of the comparison (par 97; the claimed output signal is the result of the second comparison – unclear what the “and/or” is distinguishing here).
As noted above, the claim 28/37 sensor is different than the claim 16 sensor (used for overvoltage detection and then, fed through the first comparison device and first OR-gate, to override the first data flow).
With respect to claim 38, Uchimoto discloses the actuator’s adaptation, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 37. The comparison of Vrect to a threshold (par 97) is the monitor of a physical variable exceeding an impermissible level of deviation from a set point (the set point is somewhere lower than the threshold – the deviation is the difference between the actual threshold as the set point).
Claim 37 recites narrowing structure (a second comparison device). No such language appears in claim 38, which only broadly recites how the actuator is adapted. There is no explicit introduction of any structural component to create the set point or the deviation.
With respect to claims 39-40, as in claim 38, the Uchimoto actuator is adapter to monitor (Vrect) for an impermissible high level of deviation from a functional relationship (whatever is normal is far from [deviation] the threshold) and, in dependence on this monitoring, the actuator generates an actuation signal (par 97).
With respect to claim 41, Nose discloses a first OR-gate and does not expressly disclose a second OR-gate.
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 OR-gate. The motivation for doing so would have been to obviousness to duplicate parts. MPEP §2144.06(VI)(B). The claim simply provides an ordinal number to the OR-gate. There is no structural, electrical or functional relationship between the two OR-gates. That one is “adapted to feed” its output to another does not actually require them to be connected in any way.
With respect to claims 42 and 46, the combination discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the method steps (of actually using the structure), and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 16 and 41, respectively.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimoto, Nose and Faveluke (US 6,469,907).
Uchimoto discloses the controllable switch, but does not expressly disclose it includes an SMD. Faveluke discloses that it is known for a transistor (such as Uchimoto’s) to include a surface mounted device (SMD) component arranged on a PCB having a metal carrier on which a thermally conductive insulation layer is disposed, on a side facing away from the metal carrier, conductive tracks for contacting the SMD component are disposed on the insulation layer (col. 1, lines 23-37).
It appears that everything after “SMD component arranged on a printed circuit board” is not being claimed. The claim recites that the switch includes an SMD component on a PCB. The rest of the claim, however, is descriptive of the PCB. What the PCB is or has does not further limit the SMD or its placement on the PCB. Support for this can be found in the repeated use of passive voice (describing where something “is disposed” or “are disposed”).
Claims 30-33 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimoto, Nose and Kanno (US 2014/0159501).
T sense has no effect on V sense and switch control.
Uchimoto and Nose combine to disclose the installation according to claim 16, but the combination does not expressly disclose a temperature sensor. Kanno discloses a wireless power receiver comprising an infrared temperature sensor (fig 17, item 34; par 135).
Regarding claims 30-31, Kanno explicitly discloses the infrared temperature sensor is adapted to detect a value of a temperature of the secondary winding (see last sentence of par 135).
Regarding claims 32-33, Kanno discloses the structure of the temperature sensor. Therefore, it is “adapted” as claimed. The phrase “adapted to” is not an explicit recitation of where the sensor is. The sensor has the same adaptation regardless of where it is installed (or if it is not installed at all).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that claims 30-33, which define a temperature sensor, do not explicitly recite that it is this sensed value (as opposed to voltage, for example) is utilized to provide the signal to the first comparison device of claim 16. Rather, the “one or more sensors” of claim 28 are a different sensor-set than the physical variable being captured in claim 16 (that results in the overvoltage).
The combination and Kanno are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power receivers. 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 temperature sensor, as taught by Kanno. The motivation for doing so would have been to know more about the operation of the receiver. Current flow creates heat (due to inherent resistive losses) and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to understand how much heat is produced in the combination’s receiver.
With respect to claim 45, the combination and Kanno combine to disclose a temperature sensor in the receiver, and the references are analogous, as discussed above. Kanno discloses the temperature sensor is “near” the receiver coil (par 135, last sentence). This is interpreted as including both a “first” value of the oscillation circuit and a “second” value of the rectifier. Both the oscillation circuit and the rectifier are only previously mentioned in the preamble of claim 42 – it is unclear if they are distinct claimed limitations.
Furthermore, claim 45 is descriptive of captured value. The claim does not recite the functional method steps of capturing a first value at one location (oscillating circuit) and capturing a second value at a second location (rectifier). Kanno’s sensor captures a plurality of values and they are interpreted as of the LC resonator (oscillation circuit) and of the rectifier.
The combination of the three references does not expressly disclose dividing the two captured values by each other (i.e. forming a quotient). At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to perform mathematical operations on the Kanno temperature values. So long as the analysis knows what to look for (a sum, a multiple, a quotient, etc.), the skilled artisan would have understood that the sensed values can be mathematically modified. Since the two Kanno values come from the same sensor – any division of those values would produce a result around 1 (less than one for decreasing temperatures over time; above one for increasing temperatures over time). This is the same as taking the derivative (change over time). Calculous and rate of change equations would have also been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art as a way to observe the functionality of the system/method.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimoto in view of Nose and Chambon (US 2016/0254659).
With respect to claim 43, Uchimoto discloses the detuning includes supplying an activation pulse to a transistor (M21, M22, M31 and/or M32) that places the transistor into a conducting state, and by a frequency of an AC current impressed into the primary conductor system being so high that the transistor only transitions to a blocking state after an effective current value of the AC current has disappeared (par 65).
Uchimoto discloses that an overvoltage results in an activation pulse closing M31 or M32. This adds capacitors C31 and/or C32 to the oscillation circuit. This is interpreted as resulting in “a frequency of an alternating current impressed into the primary conductor system being so high”. Later, when the effective current value has lowered (because the overvoltage is over, and V=IR – if the voltage lowers, then so does the current), the overvoltage is over and transistors M31/M32 are no longer forced closed – they are opened (i.e. transition to a blocking state).
Uchimoto discloses this functionality is carried out with a transistor and does not expressly disclose using a triac. Chambon discloses an overvoltage protection device (fig 8, item 800) and the obviousness of replacing various switches with a triac (par 78).
Uchimoto and Chambon are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power receivers with overvoltage protection. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the Uchimoto transistor with a triac, as taught by Chambon. The skilled artisan would have been aware of the benefits of various types of switches. And Chambon does not detail any hardships in changing between the different types of switching devices.
With respect to claim 44, the specific transmission frequency is obvious, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 18.
Conclusion
The Applicants are encouraged to review the claims for passive voice and the use of “adapted to”. Passive voice is descriptive and does not require what follows to be a distinct claimed limitation. “adapted to” is structural and does not impart functionality into the claim. The Applicants can keep this language, but it will be interpreted broadly.
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
Prosecution Insights