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 1, 10 and 14 are 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recites
A power reception device comprising: a power reception unit configured to wirelessly receive power from a power transmission device; and
a communication unit configured to communicate with the power transmission device; and
a calculation unit configured to calculate a value representing a coupling coefficient between the power transmission device and the power reception device, wherein the communication unit transmits (a) a packet to the power transmission device in a power transfer phase, requesting information on a first voltage that the power transmission device is transmitting to the power reception device,
(b) receive a packet including the information, after transmitting the packet_ requesting the information, and.
(c) transmit a packet for causing the power transmission device to perform a process that limits the first voltage, if a value representing the coupling coefficient based on a value calculated by the calculation unit based on the first voltage and a voltage of the power reception device satisfies a predetermined condition.
1. “a value representing a coupling coefficient”
The claim does not define what “representing” means, nor how the “value” relates to the actual coupling coefficient.
The term “value representing a coupling coefficient” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the value is the coupling coefficient, an approximation, a normalized value, a lookup index, or some other derived metric.
The specification must provide objective boundaries for determining whether a given calculated value “represents” the coupling coefficient.
Without such boundaries, one of the ordinary skilled in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
2. “a list of voltage that the power transmission device is transmitting”
The phrase “list of voltage” is grammatically unclear and technically ambiguous.
It is unclear whether “list of voltage” refers to: multiple voltage values, a table of voltage levels, a sequence over time, a set of candidate voltages, or something else.
The term “list” is not defined in the claim or context. A person of the ordinary skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of what constitutes a “list of voltage.”
3. “satisfies a predetermined condition”
The “predetermined condition” is not defined or bounded.
The claim does not specify what the condition is, how it is determined, or what parameters it involves.
Without objective boundaries, a person of the ordinary skilled in the art cannot determine whether a given implementation meets the limitation.
4. Structural ambiguity in the communication unit’s actions
The communication unit is recited as performing three actions (transmitting, receiving, transmitting), but the grammatical structure is unclear.
The phrase “and:” followed by (b) and (c) creates ambiguity as to whether these steps are required, optional, sequential, or conditional.
The claim does not clearly define the relationship between the packet requesting information, the packet including the information, and the packet for causing voltage limiting.
5. “value representing a coupling coefficient … calculated based on the first voltage … and a voltage of the power reception device”
The claim requires a specific calculation method that may not be supported.
If the specification and does not disclose: how the coupling coefficient is derived from the two voltages, the mathematical relationship, the algorithm, or the physical rationale,
then the claim may exceed the scope of the written description.
A bare mention of “calculating a coupling coefficient” is insufficient if the claim requires a specific dependency on two voltage values.
6. “calculation unit configured to calculate…”
the specification does not disclose sufficient structure for the “calculation unit,” the claim risks being indefinite.
“Unit” is a nonce term. the spec does not disclose: an algorithm, circuitry, processor configuration, or other structural detail.
7. Ambiguity in the order and dependency of packet transmissions
The claim requires transmitting a request packet, receiving a packet, and transmitting a voltage‑limiting packet, but the logical and temporal relationships are unclear.
It is unclear whether the voltage‑limiting packet must be based on the received information, the calculated coefficient, or both. The phrase “based on a value representing the coupling coefficient based on a value calculated … based on the first voltage …” is circular and confusing.
Examiner Remarks Concerning the Conditional (“If”) Statement
The claim employs a conditional construct in which the communication unit transmits a packet “for causing the power transmission device to perform a step of limiting its voltage, based on a value representing the coupling coefficient satisfying a predetermined condition.” This language is fatally unclear. The claim effectively embeds an if‑then decision rule without providing any objective criteria for determining (i) what the “predetermined condition” is, (ii) how the condition is evaluated, or (iii) what constitutes satisfaction of the condition. As drafted, the limitation is nothing more than an unbounded functional result, leaving the scope of the claim entirely dependent on undisclosed, applicant‑defined conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, this conditional structure renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claim 2
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 1, wherein the value is calculated based on a ratio of the voltage of the power reception device to the first voltage of the power transmission device."
Detailed Reasoning:
While Claim 2 attempts to narrow the scope by specifying the calculation of the "value" as a ratio, this clarification is insufficient to overcome the overall indefiniteness. The fundamental issues of the undefined "specific packet" and the unclear functional relationship between this calculated ratio and the transmission of the "specific packet," as identified in the rejection of Claim 1, persist. Without knowing what the "specific packet" represents and how the derived ratio is used to trigger or inform its transmission, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of this claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim 3
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 1, wherein the value is calculated based on a value obtained by dividing the voltage of the power reception device by the first voltage of the power transmission device."
Detailed Reasoning:
Similar to Claim 2, Claim 3 specifies the calculation as division. However, this dependent claim still relies on the foundation of Claim 1, which contains the indefinite "specific packet" and the ambiguous link between the calculated value and the packet's transmission. Therefore, the clarification in Claim 3 cannot cure the underlying indefiniteness inherited from Claim 1, as the purpose and consequence of transmitting this "specific packet" remain undefined.
Claim 4
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 1, wherein the communication unit is configured to: transmit a packet requesting information on a second voltage of the power transmission device, and receive a packet including the information on the second voltage of the power transmission device, after transmitting the packet requesting information on the second voltage of the power transmission device."
Detailed Reasoning:
Claim 4 introduces additional communication steps for a "second voltage." However, these steps are part of a device defined by the indefinite Claim 1. The indefiniteness regarding the "specific packet" and its relationship to the voltage calculation in Claim 1 is not resolved by the additional communication steps in Claim 4. The overall scope of the device, including the actions it performs, cannot be reasonably ascertained due to the foundational ambiguity.
Claim 5
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 1, wherein the value is calculated based on the first voltage of the power transmission device, a first voltage of the power reception device, the second voltage of the power transmission device, and a second voltage of the power reception device."
Detailed Reasoning:
Claim 5 broadens the inputs to the "value" calculation. However, the fundamental indefiniteness of Claim 1, particularly concerning the "specific packet" and the lack of a clear functional relationship between the calculated value and the transmission of that packet, remains unresolved. Even with more voltage inputs, the ambiguity about how this derived "value" impacts the transmission of the undefined "specific packet" makes the claim indefinite. Additionally, the phrase "a first voltage of the power reception device" in Claim 5 appears to be redundant with "a voltage of the power reception device" in Claim 1, potentially creating an ambiguity regarding whether these terms are synonymous or if a distinct "first voltage" is intended, thus adding another layer of indefiniteness if the meaning is not clarified by the specification.
Claim 6
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 5, wherein the value is calculated based on a ratio of the first voltage of the power reception device to the first voltage of the power transmission device and based on a ratio of the second voltage of the power reception device to the second voltage of the power transmission."
Detailed Reasoning:
Claim 6 depends on the already indefinite Claim 5, and thus, inherently incorporates all the indefiniteness issues present in both Claim 1 and Claim 5. While Claim 6 further specifies the calculation using ratios of both first and second voltages, this does not cure the underlying ambiguity of the "specific packet" and the unclear functional link between the calculated value and the packet's transmission. The cumulative effect of these unresolved ambiguities renders Claim 6 indefinite. The potential redundancy of the "first voltage of the power reception device," as noted in the rejection for Claim 5, also carries forward to Claim 6.
Claim 7 depends on Claim 5, which in turn depends on Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 7 inherits the indefiniteness issues from both Claim 1 and Claim 5.
Inherited Indefiniteness from Claim 1: Claim 7 remains indefinite because the "specific packet" transmitted and the unclear functional relationship between the calculated "value" (now defined as a combination of two divisions) and the transmission of that packet, as described in Claim 1, remain unresolved. Even with a more defined calculation, the lack of clarity on the packet's purpose and the trigger for its transmission persists.
Inherited Indefiniteness from Claim 5: Claim 7 inherits the potential ambiguity noted in the rejection for Claim 5 regarding the phrase "a first voltage of the power reception device" in relation to "a voltage of the power reception device" in Claim 1. If these are intended to be distinct, or if their meaning is not fully clarified by the specification, it contributes to indefiniteness.
Ambiguity in Calculation Description: While Claim 7 specifies division for both parts of the calculation, the wording "based on a value obtained by dividing... and based on a value obtained by dividing..." can be interpreted ambiguously. Does the overall "value" for Claim 5 (which Claim 7 modifies) consist of two separate values derived from these divisions, or is it a single value derived from these two divided values (e.g., their sum, product, comparison)? This phrasing lacks the necessary precision to clearly define the ultimate "value" for Claim 5, and thus for Claim 1's "specific packet" transmission. A person skilled in the art would be uncertain how these two divided values are combined or used to form the single "value"
Indefiniteness of Claim 8
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 7, wherein the communication unit is configured to transmit the specific packet in a case where the value is larger than a threshold."
Detailed Reasoning:
Claim 8 depends on Claim 7, which depends on Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1. This chain of dependency means Claim 8 incorporates all the indefiniteness issues present in Claims 1, 5, and 7.
Inherited Indefiniteness: The indefiniteness regarding the "specific packet" itself (from Claim 1) and the ambiguity surrounding how the composite "value" is formed (from Claim 7) are unresolved in Claim 8. Even though Claim 8 provides a specific condition for transmitting the packet ("larger than a threshold"), the lack of clarity on what the "specific packet" is and why this specific value triggers its transmission (i.e., what is achieved by transmitting it under this condition) renders the claim indefinite.
Unclear Threshold: The claim recites "a threshold" without defining its nature or how it is determined. Is this a fixed value, or is it dynamically set? Without further context, the meaning and scope of this limitation are not clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Indefiniteness of Claim 9
Claim Recites: "The power reception device according to Claim 1, wherein the specific packet is a packet representing an instruction to perform the foreign object detection."
Detailed Reasoning:
Claim 9 directly depends on Claim 1. While Claim 9 attempts to define the "specific packet" as "a packet representing an instruction to perform the foreign object detection," this dependent claim is still indefinite for the following reasons:
Inherited Indefiniteness from Claim 1: Claim 9 still inherits the indefiniteness from Claim 1 regarding the functional relationship between the calculated value (based on the first voltage of the power transmission device and a voltage of the power reception device) and the transmission of this specific instruction packet. Claim 1 requires the packet transmission to be "based on a value calculated based on" voltages. Claim 9 now defines the packet as a foreign object detection instruction. However, the link between the voltage-based calculation and the decision to send a foreign object detection instruction remains unexplained and unclear. A person skilled in the art would find it difficult to understand how voltage measurements relate to the detection of foreign objects, or how the value derived from those measurements informs the need to send such an instruction. The specification must clearly link the voltage-based value calculation to the rationale for instructing foreign object detection.
"Foreign Object Detection" is Undeclared/Unspecified: The claim introduces "foreign object detection" without prior introduction or clear definition within the scope of the claims or by reference to the specification. It is unclear what "foreign object detection" entails in the context of this invention, what it detects, or how it is performed or instructed by this packet. This term lacks proper antecedent basis or sufficient clarification to be definite.
The same rational should be applied to the unaddressed claims
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(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al. (US 20140015330) in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0091601)
Re Claims 1, 10 and 14; Byun discloses a power reception device (110) comprising:
a power reception unit (112) configured to wirelessly receive power from a power transmission device (100); and
a communication unit (26) configured to communicate with the power transmission device (Fig. 1 and also see par 0032):
a calculation unit. (25) configured to calculate a value representing a coupling coefficient between the power transmission device and the reception device. (Par 0031)
wherein the communication unit transmits a packet to the power transmitting device in a power transfer phase, requesting information on a first voltage that the power transmission device is transmitting to the power reception device, (500, Fig.5, also par 0064)
receive a packet including the information, after transmitting the packet (505, Fig. 5 and also par 0064), and
Byun does not disclose
transmit a packet for causing the power transmission device to perform a process that limits the first voltage if a value representing the coupling coefficient based on a value calculated by the calculation unit based on the first voltage and a voltage of the power reception device satisfies a predetermined condition.
However, Kim discloses transmit a packet for causing the power transmission device to perform a process that limits the first voltage if a value representing the coupling coefficient based on a value calculated by the calculation unit based on the first voltage and a voltage of the power reception device satisfies a predetermined condition (Par 0134-6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have output a signal based on a calculated value in order to maximize the amount of power required by the load so that the load operates effectively.
It should be known that this portion of the claim is conditional. (Transmit a specific packet based on a value calculated based on the first voltage of the power transmission device and a voltage of the power reception device.) and can be ignored when the other part of the condition is met.
Re Claim 2; Kim discloses wherein the value is calculated based on a ratio of the voltage of the power reception device to the first voltage of the power transmission device. (Par 0135)
Re Claim 3; Byun discloses wherein the value is calculated based on a value obtained by dividing the voltage of the power reception device by the first voltage of the power transmission device. (Abstract)
Re Claims 4 and 11; Byun discloses wherein the communication unit is configured to: transmit a packet requesting information on a second voltage of the power transmission device, and receive a packet including the information on the second voltage of the power transmission device, after transmitting the packet requesting information on the second voltage of the power transmission device. (Par 0068-69, 0095, fig. 5 the reference discloses constant communication (loop) between the transmitter and the receiver to determine more effective power limit the receiver requires “Furthermore, by enabling the power receiver and the power transmitter to check each other via wireless communication, incorrect power transmission may be prevented and reliability of the multiple power transmission system may be secured.”)
Re Claims 5 and 12, Kim discloses wherein the value is calculated based on the first voltage of the power transmission device, a first voltage of the power reception device, the second voltage of the power transmission device, and a second voltage of the power reception device. (Par 0207-9)
Re Claim 6; Kim discloses wherein the value is calculated based on a ratio of the first voltage of the power reception device to the first voltage of the power transmission device and based on a ratio of the second voltage of the power reception device to the second voltage of the power transmission device. (Par 0207-9)
Re Claim 7 and 13; Byun discloses wherein the value is calculated based on a value obtained by dividing the first voltage of the power reception device by the first voltage of the power transmission device and based on a value obtained by dividing the second voltage of the power reception device by the second voltage of the power transmission device. (Par 0031)
Re Claim 8; Byun discloses wherein the communication unit is configured to transmit the specific packet in a case where the value is larger than a threshold. (Par 0068-9)
Re Claim 9; the combination of Byun in view of Kim discloses In the selection phase S410, the wireless power transmitter 100 may determine, for example, whether there is a foreign object in the charging area. The foreign object (FO) may be a metal object including a coin, key, and the like (Par 0143)
The combination does not disclose wherein the specific packet is a packet representing an instruction to perform the foreign object detection.
However, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used the specific packet to perform the foreign object detection in order to regulate the power required by the load.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 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/
02/17/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836