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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicants’ reply does not address the §112(d) rejection of claim 5 or the request for the PCT Written Opinion.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 23, 2025. These drawings are acceptable and will be entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-19 and 22 are objected to because they do not contain the proper status identifiers. These claims should be labeled as “withdrawn”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 does not recite any limitations that are not already defined in claim 4. Claim 5 introduces “a second charging circuit”, but the only defining characteristic of this second charging circuit is that it comprises the, already claimed, at least one second barrier circuit. It appears that claim 5 simply gives the claim 4 structure a new name. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite any limitations that are not already recited in claim 4. A new name for an already-claimed component does not impart any narrowing structure.
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 § 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 1-6, 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 2019/0056708).
With respect to claim 1, Kumar discloses a charging system (fig 1-5; all text) comprising:
a first device (202) 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).
With respect to claim 2, 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, 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.
With respect to claims 4-5, 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.
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 anticipated 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.
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.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Graff (US 2021/0235559).
This is an alternative rejection of claim 24. 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).
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 earliest priority date of the application, 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
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