DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 5/16/24.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. Applicant’s election of Species A (claims 2-7) in the reply filed on 4/27/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20190157907) in view of Oshima et al. (US 20190305613).
Regarding claim 1: Sugiyama et al. disclose (i.e. figures 2-3) a power receiving device (i.e. device of 2) for receiving AC power (i.e. to 21) transmitted from a power transmitting device (i.e. device for 21) in a non-contact manner (i.e. see figure 3), the power receiving device (i.e. device of 2) comprising:
a power receiving unit (i.e. 21, 22, 23, 24) to receive the AC power transmitted from a power transmitting unit (i.e. from 14) of the power transmitting device (i.e. 14);
a rectifier (i.e. 231) in which a circuit (i.e. circuit of 231) to rectify the AC power (i.e. to 21) into DC power (i.e. output of 231) is provided, a plurality of semiconductor switches (i.e. Q1, Q2) that are to be in one of an ON state and an OFF state (i.e. on/off of Q1, Q2) and are provided in a part of the circuit (i.e. circuit of 231), and an output terminal of the power receiving unit (i.e. 21, 22, 23, 24) is configured to be brought into an open state by selecting the ON state or the OFF state (i.e. on/off of Q1, Q2) of the plurality of semiconductor switches (i.e. Q1, Q2);
a filter (i.e. 232) to smooth the DC power rectified by the rectifier (i.e. 231);
a voltage detector (i.e. 284, 282) to detect an output voltage (i.e. voltage from 232) of the filter unit (i.e. 232); and
a failure determinator (i.e. ECU of 200) to determine at least one of a failure location and a failure mode of the rectifier (i.e. 231) on a basis of the voltage from the voltage detector (i.e. 282),
but does not specifically disclose a failure determinator to determine at least one of a failure location and a failure mode of the rectifier on a basis of the output voltage from the voltage detector.
Oshima et al. disclose wireless power device (i.e. figure 2) comprising a failure determinator (i.e. from controller 23) to determine at least one of a failure location and a failure mode of the rectifier (i.e. RT1) on a basis of the output voltage (i.e. voltage to VD1) from the voltage detector (i.e. VD1) (i.e. ¶ 72-75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Sugiyama et al.’s invention with the device as disclose by Oshima et al. to accurately detect a position of a power receiving coil relative to a power transmitting coil irrespective of a connection state of a load.
Regarding claim 2: Sugiyama et al. (i.e. figures 2-3) disclose the circuit of the rectifier (i.e. 231) is a diode bridge rectification circuit including four diodes (i.e. D1-D4), a first semiconductor switch (i.e. Q1) and a second semiconductor switch (i.e. Q2) are connected in series to two diodes (i.e. D3, D4) of the four diodes each (i.e. D1-D4), and the output terminal of the power receiving unit (i.e. 21) is in an open state when both of the first semiconductor switch (i.e. Q1) and the second semiconductor switch (i.e. Q2) are in the OFF state (i.e. non-conductive, see figure 4(a)) (i.e. ¶ 92-95).
Regarding claim 4: Sugiyama et al. disclose (i.e. figures 2-3) for the two diodes (i.e. D3, D4) in which connection is made in their cathodes, the first semiconductor switch (i.e. Q1) is connected in series to one diode (i.e. D3), and the second semiconductor switch (i.e. Q2) is connected in series to the other diode (i.e. D4).
Regarding claim 6: Sugiyama et al. disclsoes (i.e. figures 2-3) the failure determinator (i.e. ECU of 200) determines whether or not at least one of the semiconductor switches (i.e. Q1 or Q2) is in a conduction failure mode (i.e. circuit failure) on a basis of an output voltage (i.e. from 282) detected by the voltage detector (i.e. 282) when both of the first semiconductor switch (i.e. Q1) and the second semiconductor switch (i.e. Q2) are controlled to be in the OFF state (i.e. ¶ 92-95).
Regarding claim 7: Sugiyama et al. (i.e. figures 2-3) when one of the first semiconductor switch (i.e. Q1 or Q2) and the second semiconductor switch is controlled to be in the ON state and the other (i.e. Q1 or Q2) is controlled to be in the OFF state, the failure determinator (i.e. ECU of 200) determines whether or not the semiconductor switch (i.e. Q1 or Q2) controlled to be in the ON state is in an open failure mode (i.e. failure) on a basis of the output voltage detected by the voltage detector (i.e. 282) (i.e. 92-102).
6. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20190157907) in view of Oshima et al. (US 20190305613) and further in view of Luo et al. (US 9997994).
Regarding claim 3: Sugiyama et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the two of the four diodes constitute one leg of the diode bridge rectifier, the other two diodes constitute the other leg of the diode bridge rectification circuit, and for the two diodes constituting the one leg, the first semiconductor switch is connected in series to one diode, and the second semiconductor switch is connected in series to the other diode.
Luo et al. disclose a rectifier device (i.e. figure 8) comprising the two of the four diodes (i.e. D1-D4) constitute one leg of the diode bridge rectifier (i.e. 111), the other two diodes (i.e. D1, D2) constitute the other leg (i.e. D3, D4) of the diode bridge rectification circuit (i.e. circuit of 11), and for the two diodes constituting the one leg (i.e. D1, D2), the first semiconductor switch (i.e. S2) is connected in series to one diode (i.e. D1 or D2), and the second semiconductor switch (i.e. S1) is connected in series to the other diode (i.e. D3 or D4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Sugiyama et al.’s invention with the device as disclose by Luo et al. to increase conversion efficiency of the power conversion.
Regarding claim 5: Sugiyama et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose wherein, for the two diodes in which connection is made in their anodes, the first semiconductor switch is connected in series to one diode, and the second semiconductor switch is connected in series to the other diode.
Luo et al. disclose a rectifier device (i.e. figure 8) comprising wherein, for the two diodes (i.e. D2, D4) in which connection is made in their anodes, the first semiconductor switch (i.e. S2) is connected in series to one diode (i.e. D2), and the second semiconductor switch (i.e. S1) is connected in series to the other diode (i.e. D4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Sugiyama et al.’s invention with the device as disclose by Luo et al. to increase conversion efficiency of the power conversion.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/Nguyen Tran/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights