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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “1-3, 13 and 14” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The term "receiving unit" is a generic placeholder that does not connote sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for performing the function of receiving power wirelessly. While the specification generally describes a power receiving device, it does not explicitly disclose the specific circuitry, components, or algorithms used by the "receiving unit" to receive power wirelessly.
The limitation "an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the power transmission device, information on a first period in which the power transmission device limits power transfer" is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because it recites a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. The term "obtaining unit" is a generic placeholder that does not connote sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for performing the function of obtaining information on a first period in which the power transmission device limits power transfer. While the specification may describe communication between the power transmission device and the power receiving device, it does not explicitly disclose the specific circuitry, components, or algorithms used by the "obtaining unit" to receive the specific information regarding power limitations.
"a transmission unit configured to transmit, based on the obtained information, to the power transmission device information disabling foreign object detection based on a decay" is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because it recites a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. The term "transmission unit" is a generic placeholder that does not connote sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for performing the function of transmitting information disabling foreign object detection based on a decay. While the specification may describe a communication channel from the power receiving device to the power transmission device, it does not explicitly disclose the specific circuitry, components, or algorithms used by the "transmission unit" to transmit information that disables foreign object detection.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1, 13, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the claim language is indefinite. Terms such as Ambiguity in "first period" and "second period": The definitions of "first period" and "second period" rely on relative states ("limits power transmission," "not determined that power transmission has been stopped") which may lack clear, objective boundaries that can be determined by a person of ordinary skill in the art when reading the claim in light of the specification. The examiner argues these terms are subjective or circular and thus render the claim indefinite.
1. Subjectivity of Relative States
The definitions of "first period" and "second period" rely on "relative states" described by phrases such as "limits power transmission" and "not determined that power transmission has been stopped." The examiner contends that these phrases are subjective because they lack clear, measurable boundaries.
"Limits power transmission": This phrase is vague. Does it mean a 1% reduction, a 50% reduction, or complete cessation? Without a specific threshold defined in the claim or clearly explained in the specification, a POSITA would not know precisely when the "first period" begins or ends.
"Not determined that power transmission has been stopped": This phrasing is even more problematic. It uses a "not determined" standard, which suggests a state of mind or an observation rather than a physical or objective condition of the device. This introduces significant ambiguity regarding what criteria and processes are needed for such a determination.
2. Lack of Objective Boundaries for a POSITA
Patent claims must be clear enough for a POSITA to understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention when reading the claim in light of the entire patent specification.
If the specification fails to provide objective metrics (e.g., "a 90% reduction in torque" or "when a sensor output falls below X volts"), the terms remain ambiguous. The examiner is arguing that the current language forces a POSITA to guess or make an arbitrary judgment about when these periods occur, rendering the claim indefinite.
3. Potential for Circular or Relative Definitions
The definitions may be circular or inherently relative, meaning one term is defined by its relationship to another equally vague term, without ever grounding the definitions in concrete, objective reality.
If "first period" depends on "limits power transmission," and "second period" depends on a condition that relates back to the first period's state without a clear transition point, the entire claim structure becomes a closed loop of ambiguity that a POSITA cannot navigate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are still not allowable based on the rejection above. The claim is still subjected to 112 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
06/04/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
