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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on May 4, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed with the RCE, with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 under Kumar 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Ringsrud (US 2017/0078544), which discloses transceivers that wirelessly communicate using RF across an isolation barrier (par 48). Further, Graff (cited as a secondary reference in the Final Rejection) discloses that the secondary device charges a battery (item 112n; par 28).
Regarding claim 2, the art rejection is updated to cite to Kumar first device as including both items 202 and 208. Thus, the power source (208) is internal.
Regarding claim 4, Kumar’s barrier circuits do not “incidentally affect current flow”. They are clearly in the path of current that is received from the first device (see the first sentence of paragraph 64).
Furthermore, the claim only broadly recites “configured to limit a transferred electrical power”. This language describes the effects that the barrier circuit (one or more of a resistor, diode, fuse) structure has on current/power – it does not explicitly define the location of the barrier circuit. A resistor is “configured to limit” electrical power because it slows down the passage of current between its terminals. Naming a power (i.e. “transferred” electrical power) does not further define the structure/configuration of the barrier circuit. It is not the same as distinctly reciting that the second barrier circuit is connected to a node or other component (for example, see the “communicatively coupled” language that the Applicants added to claim 5). If the Applicants intend for their second barrier circuit to be in a specific location that is not taught by the prior art, they are invited to amend the claim accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner agrees that “communicatively coupled to the battery” is further narrowing of claim 1 because the language in claim 1 (“second charging circuit configured to charge the battery”) does not actually require that the charger and battery are connected. A charger, by definition, outputs power to a downstream circuit. This is its configuration. The charger has this configuration even without a connection to a battery. Thus, the language of claim 5 further narrows claim 1. And the charger of claim 5 is taught by Graff (par 28).
Regarding claim 6, the Applicants’ comments are not persuasive. The specification defines PPE as equipment and Kumar discloses the same equipment. It is the Applicants’ burden to amend the claim to explicitly recite the distinguishing structure. “During prosecution, the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude.” See, e.g. Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(en banc).” MPEP §2173.02
Regarding claim 20, an “air gap” is broad and does not distinguish over the prior art. It is the Applicants’ burden to amend the claim to more narrowly define the barrier to overcome the prior art.
Regarding claim 23, “circuit” is broad and many include multiple individual elements. There is no requirement in the language of the claim that exactly one discrete circuit element serves a plurality of functions. This is further supported by the open-ended transitional phrase, “comprises” that is used in claims 1 and 23. MPEP §2111.03(I).
Regarding claim 24, the Applicants’ contention that Graff does not remedy the deficit of Kumar with respect to claim 1 is not persuasive. As noted above, Graff discloses the second device comprises a charger and battery (par 28).
Election/Restrictions
The amendment to claim 1 regarding the RF or NFMI transceivers are part of species D, which was not elected without traverse (see claims 18-19). In future replies, if the Applicants intend to incorporate non-elected subject matter into the claims, they should provide an explanation as to why the restriction requirement (and their election) does not apply.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the wherein clause defining the transceivers is in the “an intrinsic barrier” paragraph. These wherein clauses should either be their own paragraph or placed in the “a first communication module” and “a second communication module” paragraphs.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2019/0056708) in view of Ringsrud (US 2017/0078544) and Graff (US 2021/0235559).
With respect to claim 1, Kumar discloses a charging system (fig 1-5; all text) comprising:
a first device (202 with or without 208) comprising:
a first power interface (fig 2, top right, where the “power” line exits 202; see also fig 3, item 304);
a first communication module (322) comprising at least one first transceiver;
a second communication module (324) comprising at least one second transceiver; and
an intrinsic barrier (specification, page 9, lines 2-3, defines this as including “an air gap or a dielectric”; Kumar has air between 322/324, as the reference does not disclose any vacuum; Kumar has a dielectric in isolator 326, at least within the “opto, transformer or capacitive” isolators, as discussed in par 40 – par 58 indicates that “opto” is an photocoupler) disposed between and physically (see fig 3) and electrically (see par 57-58) separating the first communication module from the second communication module such that there is no galvanic connection between the first/second communication modules (par 32, 79), wherein the first/second communication modules are configured to wirelessly exchange data signals therebetween (isolator 326 includes a wireless link, including the photocoupler, transformer and/or capacitive isolator circuits); and
a second device (either of 206 or 204) comprising a second power interface (top left of either component to accept “power”);
wherein the first power interface and the second power interface are configured to be electrically connected to each other to transfer electrical power between the first and second devices (see fig 2; par 51, 76).
Kumar discloses a first device (isolation module 202) and a second device (I/O module 206 or Barrier Hardware 204) that are connected to transfer power and data through a hazardous environments. Kumar discloses that the safety barrier (200) can include any number of the components, including connecting the isolation module to the I/O module or directly to the Barrier Hardware.
The Kumar first device includes two transceivers that communicate wirelessly across an intrinsic barrier (326). The intrinsic barrier is either “air” (the space between 322/324 is not airtight) or a “dielectric” (provided by the barrier types listed in par 40). Also, claim 20 defines the barrier as including “an air gap”. An air gap is obviously present between the Kumar transceivers.
Kumar does not expressly disclose the transceivers are one of RF or NFMI or that the second device includes a charger and battery. Ringsrud discloses a charging system (fig 4; pages 4-5) comprising a first device (400) with a first communication module (above 434), a second communication module (below 434), and an intrinsic barrier (434) between them, wherein at least one of the first/second transceivers comprise one or more of a NFMI transceiver and RF transceiver (par 48).
Ringsrud discloses RF transceivers that communicate across an isolation barrier. Ringsrud states “isolating communication channels 434 may be capable of two-way communication and can include any one or more of optical isolators, wireless communication devices (e.g. RF []), magnetic communication components …” (par 48). This discloses teaches the “RF transceiver” and provides the bridging disclosure to inform the skilled artisan that the RF transceivers can be incorporated into the Kumar first device.
Kumar and Ringsrud are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless communication transceivers that communicate across an intrinsic barrier. At the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Kumar to include the RF transceiver, as taught by Ringsrud. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps in the Kumar disclosure with a known and proven communication protocol with a reasonable expectation of success. Kumar teaches that wireless communication is desired, but does not expressly disclose how to construct the transceiver (the barrier is described, but not the transceiver). Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art to understand what types of transceivers have been successfully applied in other similar systems.
Graff discloses (fig 2a) an intrinsically safe first device that comprises a first power interface (220a or b) to provide power to a second power interface of a second device (112a, 112b), wherein the second device comprises a battery (within 112n) and a second charging circuit (within 112n; see par 48) configured to charge the battery using at least a portion of the electrical power received at the second power interface. Kumar and Graff are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely intrinsically safe power supplies. At the time of the Applicants’ effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Kumar to include a battery and charger in the second device, as taught by Graff. The motivation for doing so would have been to store power that is not immediately required, as is commonly known. By adding a battery, the Kumar second device can store power for use when/if incoming power is not available.
With respect to claim 2, the Kumar first device is interpreted as being components 202 and 208, and Kumar discloses wherein
the first device further comprises a first power source (208; shown in fig 3 as “power input” at the top-left),
the first power interface is configured to be electrically connected to the first power source (see fig 3; power is transferred through 306, 308, 310 and 312) and configured to receive a first electrical power from the first power source (redundant to their electrical connection; see also par 52-54), and
the second power interface is configured to receive at least a portion of the first electrical power from the first power interface (shown in fig 2 by either of 206/204 having a terminal to receive the “power” line/cable; see par 39, 43, 64).
With respect to claim 3, the Kumar first device is interpreted as only comprising item 202, and Kumar discloses wherein
the first power interface is configured to be electrically connected to an external power source (208) and configured to receive an external electrical power from the external power source (redundant), and
the second power interface is configured to receive at least a portion of the external electrical power from the first power interface (see power paths through 202 in fig 2-3; par 52-54).
Claims 2 and 3 separately depend from claim 1. There is no requirement in the language of the claims that the “external” external power source (claim 3) is not the same as the “first” power source (claim 2). The terms “first” and “external” are not defined and are not explicitly recited as being different. Changing the interpretation of Kumar’s first device to include 208 (for claim 2) or not (for claim 3) is not a modification of the reference.
With respect to claim 4, Kumar discloses the second device comprises at least one second barrier circuit (fig 4, any one or more of 402, 404, 406 and/or 410; par 64-65) configured to limit a transferred electrical power transferred from the first power interface to the second power interface, and wherein the at least one second barrier circuit comprises one or more of a resistor (434a or b), a diode (within 410), and a fuse (at 404).
Kumar’s second device includes a number of devices that limit current flow. As the first and second devices are in series, any current limiting within the second device would affect the transfer of power from the first power interface to the second power interface. The Examiner notes that claim 4 simply lists components without reciting where they are or how they are interconnected. The “configured to” language is descriptive of the structure of the barrier circuit itself – it does not recite where the barrier circuit is electrically located in the overall system.
With respect to claim 5, Graff discloses the second charging circuit is communicatively coupled to the battery (par 48). Within the combination, the second charging circuit would also comprise the at least one (Kumar) second barrier circuit (that is located upstream of the charger and/or battery).
With respect to claim 6, Kumar discloses the an article of PPE comprises the second device (par 21). The second device is the I/O module that connects to various sensors 102a that “could measure a wide variety of characteristics in the process system, such as temperature, pressure.” (par 21). The specification defines PPE as “may also include any other type of clothing or device/equipment that may be word or used by the users to protect against extreme noise levels, extreme temperatures …” (page 3, lines 4-7, emphasis added). The specification indicates that the PPE does not have to be clothing, but can include equipment that is used by a person. Thus, the claimed PPE is taught by Kumar’s I/O module and its sensors.
With respect to claim 20, Kumar discloses the intrinsic barrier comprises an air gap or a dielectric, as discussed in the art rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 23, Kumar discloses the first device comprises at least one first barrier circuit (fig 3; any of 306, 308, 310 and/or 312; par 52-54) configured to limit a maximum electrical power and protect against overcurrent and surge current. As noted above, the “configured to” language is descriptive of the structure (of the barrier circuit) and does not recite where the circuit is placed in the system.
With respect to claim 24, Kumar discloses the first power interface and the second power interface are galvanically isolated from each other (par 79).
Under a first interpretation, Kumar discloses that the first device includes an isolated power supply (302) that provides galvanic isolation (par 79). If the first power interface is interpreted as being to the left of 312, then the isolator 312 provides galvanic isolation between the first and second power interfaces.
Under a second interpretation, when the Kumar two devices are disconnected, their power interfaces are galvanically isolated. Claim 24 uses the passive voice to describe how the interfaces are galvanically isolated. The claim does not recite any narrowing structure to explicitly define what makes them so. For example, the specification recite an embodiment in which the two power interfaces are wirelessly coupled (page 4, lines 10-17). The claim, however, does not recite any structure to particularly point out or distinctly claim that the Applicants intend to include any such wireless power structure into the claim. Reciting the benefit is not the same as the structure that creates it.
Under a third interpretation, Kumar discloses galvanic isolation at circuit 312, but does not expressly disclose wireless power (and its associated galvanic isolation) between the first/second power interfaces. Graff (fig 2a) discloses an intrinsically safe first device that comprises a first power interface (220a or b) to provide power to a second power interface of a second device (112a, 112b). Graff discloses the connection between the first/second power interfaces can be wired (115a) or wireless (115b; par 18).
At the time of the Applicants’ effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Kumar to include a wireless power interface connection, as taught by Graff. The motivation for doing so would have been to supply power through a known and equivalent alternative. Graff discloses the ability to select between (or use both) wired and wireless power interfaces. There is no hardship in using one over the other. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered a wireless interface for any of the Kumar power interfaces. The Applicants’ specification indicates that galvanic isolation is a side effect of wireless power transmission (broadly). The combination teaches wireless power transfer in an intrinsically safe electrical system with the same structure as claim 1 and, therefore, would provide the same benefits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited in the enclosed PTO-892 form disclose that RF and NFMI are known wireless communication protocols to be used in intrinsically safe systems. Namely Ragonese (US 2017/0358993), at least the cover page shows transceiver provide RF communication through an intrinsic barrier (transformer 116).
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, Taelor Kim 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
