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
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While Oettinger does not disclose wireless communication between the transmitter and receiver, such a feature is well known in the art. The phrase “and data connection [] is established” is too basic a function in the field of wireless power to be considered as allowable subject matter. Both Seong and Park disclose this feature. For the purpose of the art rejection of the claims, Oettinger is combined with Park to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 14 (as it was already for claims 17-18). Furthermore, no part of claims 1/14 recite the structure (or method steps) necessary for either establishing a communication or actually communicating. For example, apparatus claim 14 recite a primary resonant circuit and a control unit – there are no communication components. Neither claim recites any establishment of communication or the detection that such an establishment is actually achieved/compete. The “when” language is not a substitute for distinct structure or functionality (as expanded upon, below).
The Applicant then contends that the standby power is “a continuous low-power excitation state” to create “steady-state conditions” (Remarks, page 9). This is directed to unclaimed subject matter. No such language appears in the claim. The Applicant has been put on notice that the Office is interpreting standby power as including pulses – it is the Applicant’s responsibility to amend the claim to clarify what this term means. 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.
The claims end with a wherein clause that describes the intended use of the output signal. This phrase is neither structural nor functional (Remarks, page 10). The claim does not define a “specifically adapted” signal that can only control an industrial process. Oettinger and Seong both disclose an output signal that includes at least data indicating foreign object detected or foreign object not detected. An industrial process can be modified to accept this data as input. In other words, there is no requirement that the output signal itself must be specifically adapted.
Further, any adaptations of the output signal would be a structural or functional limitation of the transmitter (how the signal is created). But the claims only flatly state “generating an output signal” and “generate an output signal”. There is no specifically adapted formatting within the scope of the apparatus/method that is being claimed.
Next, the industrial process is not a claimed limitation. And it is left undefined and only mentioned in a wherein descriptive phrase – it is not a distinct limitation. No processes are clearly defined to set forth the metes and bounds of what an appropriately formatted control signal would be. The Applicant’s argument would carry more weight if the claim positively introduced a specific type of industrial process and submitted evidence that it could only possibly operate with one specifically adapted signal.
The Applicant refers to the specification (without citations) for examples of the benefits of applying a control signal to an industrial process. None of these are claimed. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment” (emphasis added). Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed.Cir. 2004). MPEP §2111.01(II).
The Applicant does not dispute that Oettinger and Seong each disclose providing an output signal regarding the foreign object determination. This output signal is then used to “control” functionality (i.e. wireless power transmission). Thus, the output signal is a “control signal”. Placing the Oettinger or Seong transmitter into an industrial setting would then make it “for an industrial process”. The claim language requires no more than the coincidental physical placement of the prior art’s transmitter in a new location (somewhere “industrial”).
The art rejection citing Oettinger is updated to rely on Park as a secondary reference for all claims (not just 17-18). The anticipation rejection citing Seong is maintained.
Drawings
Replacement figures 1-3 were received on March 30, 2026. These drawings are acceptable and will be entered.
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.
Claim 1 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “activating the first operating mode” and then describes the associated functionality. But the claim only refers to the second operating mode as a hypothetical. The claim recites, “when the second operating mode is activated”. But there are no distinct method steps that recite “activating the second operating mode”. While the preamble indicates that the primary device “is designed such that [] the second operating mode can be activated”, there are no actual steps explicitly defining its activation.
The different phrases indicate that the two operating modes are to be treated differently. The “when” language indicates a hypothetical and that the second operating mode is outside the scope of the claim. But the claim language (namely, defining functionality of the second operating mode) indicates that the Applicant intends to seek patent protection over it.
Different readers would draw different conclusions about the scope of the claim, thereby making it indefinite.
Claims 4-13 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
Claim 14, like claim 1, recites “a control unit designed to – activate a first operating mode”. There are no limitations in the claim that explicitly give the control unit the design to activate the second operation mode. Rather, the claim refers to the second operating mode as part of a “when” hypothetical – “to excite the primary resonant coil with a standby power when the second operating mode is activated”.
Claims 15-18 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 14.
For the purpose of the art rejections of the claims, the second operating mode will be interpreted as being included within the scope of the claim. For claim 1, this would include the method step of “activating” the second operating mode. For claim 14, this would include the control device being designed to “activate” the second operating mode.
Claims 14-18 are also rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what type of wireless power apparatus the Applicant is seeking patent protection over. The independent claims define “a primary resonant circuit” but then recite that the first operating mode includes “inductive power transmission”. A coil and a capacitor form a resonant circuit; an inductor/coil by itself forms an inductive circuit. The skilled artisan would understand that they are not the same and would be confused by which the Applicant is claiming.
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 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong (US 2021/0274606). The apparatus claims are treated first.
With respect to claim 14, Seong discloses a primary device (fig 4-7; par 96-) for inductive power transmission, comprising:
a primary resonant circuit (107n and 150); and
a control unit (190) designed to activate a first operating mode (fig 6, normal operation mode) to initiate the inductive power transmission when the primary device is coupled to a secondary device and a data connection to the secondary device is established (through “communication connection” in the soft-start mode);
wherein the primary device is designed:
to transmit a secondary power via the primary resonant circuit to a secondary resonant circuit of the secondary device coupled to the primary device when a first operating mode is activated (fig 5, S70; fig 6 the far-right column is labeled as “power transmission” and “normal operation mode”); and
to excite the primary resonant circuit with a standby power when a second operating mode is activated (fig 5, S20 and/or S40; fig 6, either/both first/second foreign object detection modes; par 132); and
wherein the control unit is designed to measure a standby operating parameter of the primary device in the activated second operating mode, to detect a target object in a detection area based on the measured standby operating parameter (fig 7, S110, S120 and/or S130; par 189, 191-194), and to generate an output signal (S160; par 196); and
wherein the output signal is a control signal (par 196) for controlling an industrial process (it creates an alarm; what a signal is “for” is not further limiting for the structure of what generates the signal in the first place).
Seong discloses a wireless power transmitter with two modes – a first for wireless power transmission and a second “standby” mode for foreign object detection. The same resonator circuit is exciting in both modes. The claim does not define the substance of either mode – only that they include the transmission of power to the secondary. Seong anticipates this limitation. Seong also discloses that the first operating mode is only activated after/when communication is established.
The last wherein clause is not further limiting. There is no evidence of record that the output signal, in order to control an industrial process, can only be achieved with narrowing structure to be incorporated into the control unit. Rather, for whatever formatting the Seong output signal has, there exists an industrial process that can be modified to accept it. As the industrial process is not within the scope of the claim – any such modifications are not a modification of the Seong reference. Alternatively, physically placing the Seong primary device in an industrial setting would make the output signal “for” an industrial process. The physical movement of the Seong device is not a modification.
With respect to claim 15, Seong discloses the control unit is designed, when the second operating mode is activated, to excite the primary resonant circuit at a predetermined primary frequency (see fig 6, par 173-174).
With respect to claim 16, Seong discloses the standby operating parameter includes a primary current (par 167) flowing from a link capacitor into an amplifier and the primary resonant circuit, or an input current of the primary device (par 167).
Seong disclose measuring either “input current” (claimed “input current”) or “resonance current” (claimed “primary current”).
As noted above, the “link capacitor” and “amplifier” are not distinctly claimed.
With respect to claims 1 and 7-8, Seong discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 14, 16 and 15, respectively.
With respect to claim 4, Seong discloses detecting a user input and activating the first operating mode or the second operating mode depending on the user input (par 59, 116-120, 123).
With respect to claim 5, Seong discloses determining the standby power of the primary resonant circuit depending on the user input when the second operating mode is activated (par 123 – the user input starts the flowchart of figs 5 and 6, which are used to initiate the second operating mode for foreign object detection).
With respect to claim 6, Seong discloses:
measuring a secondary power parameter (par 167) of the secondary device when the first operating mode is activated; and
controlling a primary frequency at which the primary resonant circuit is excited (par 173-174) in such a way that a predetermined value of the secondary power parameter is obtained (current through the resonator can only be sensed when inverter 140 is driven to create the AC power).
With respect to claim 9, Seong discloses the standby operating parameter comprises a primary current or an input current of the primary device (par 167 covers both options).
With respect to claim 10, Seong discloses detecting the target object in the detection area comprises comparing the standby operating parameter with a predetermined threshold value (fig 7, steps S110, 120 and/or 130; par 189-194).
With respect to claim 11, Seong discloses determining the secondary parameter based on calibration data (the preset thresholds are “calibration data”) or a characteristic curve.
With respect to claim 12, Seong discloses determining a distance between the target object and the primary device when the target object is detected in the detection area (par 133). Seong can determine alignment -this is interpreted as including “distance”.
With respect to claim 13, Seong discloses the output signal includes a switching signal and/or a warning signal (Seong outputs an alarm – par 196).
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 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oettinger (US 2015/0285926) in view of Park (US 2017/0331334).
With respect to claim 14, Oettinger discloses a primary device (fig 2-4, 10-11; par 24-34, 38, 45-53) for inductive power transmission, comprising:
a primary resonant circuit (114); and
a control unit (112) designed to activate a first operating mode to initiate the inductive power transmission when the primary device is coupled to a secondary device;
wherein the primary device is designed:
to transmit a secondary power via a primary resonant circuit to a secondary resonant circuit of a secondary device coupled to the primary device when a first operating mode is activated (par 25-27) ; and
to excite the primary resonant circuit with a standby power when a second operating mode is activated (par 30-32 – the pulses are “standby power”); and
wherein the control unit is designed to measure a standby operating parameter of the primary device in the activated second operating mode, to detect a target object in a detection area based on the measured standby operating parameter (par 33-34, 36, 38), and to generate an output signal (fig 10, step 204; par 46 – the reduction in and/or termination of output power indicates that the foreign object determination was shared with the rest of the controller – i.e. the generation of an output signal); and
wherein the output signal is a control signal for controlling an industrial process (fig 10, step 204; par 46 – the Oettinger output signal is used for downstream control of another function; also, what the signal is “for” is not further limiting, as discussed above).
Oettinger discloses a wireless power transmitter that sends full operating power in a first mode to a receiver and can send “standby power” in a second mode (pulses shown in figs 3-8). During the second mode, Oettinger detects the presence of a foreign object. If no object is detected, the transmitter reverts to the first mode. If an object is detected, an “output signal” is generated to control a downstream function to reduce/terminate transmitted power. The industrial process is not a distinct limitation and does not further limit the scope of the output signal, as discussed above. Alternatively, the Oettinger primary device can be physically placed in an industrial setting.
Oettinger does not expressly disclose that the first operating mode is only activated “when [] a data connection to the secondary device is established”. Park discloses a primary device for inductive power transmission (fig 1, 6; pages 3-5) comprising a control unit to activate a first operating mode (S560) or a second operating mode (S510) and designed to activate the first operating mode to initiate inductive power transmission (S560) when the primary device is coupled to a secondary device and a data connection to the secondary device is established (S550; par 68).
Oettinger and Park are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with foreign object detection. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Oettinger to wait for a data connection before supplying wireless power, as taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the primary device sends an appropriate amount of power.
Wireless communication between transmitter/receiver is ubiquitous in the wireless power field. The claim does not recite any structure necessary for communication or clearly describe how the control unit would know/sense that communication was established. The “when” phrasing used in the claim can also be read as coincidental (not causal).
With respect to claim 15, Oettinger discloses the control unit is designed, when the second operating mode is activated, to excite the primary resonant circuit at a predetermined primary frequency (par 31, first sentence).
With respect to claim 16, Oettinger discloses the standby operating parameter includes a primary current (via 118) flowing from a link capacitor into an amplifier and the primary resonant circuit, or an input current of the primary device.
The primary current is measured via the voltage divider (R1, R1). Through Ohm’s Law, the voltage at R2 is directly proportional to the current through the primary resonator. Thus, the measure of one (voltage) satisfies the other (current).
The Examiner notes that the “link capacitor” and “amplifier” are not distinctly claimed. These structural components only appear as part of a description of the primary current. These components do not have a distinct introduction (compared to how the Applicants introduced the primary resonant circuit and control unit in claim 14) and, therefore, are not interpreted as being claimed. A primary current is the current through the resonant circuit – regardless of where/how the AC power is generated (amplifier, oscillator, etc.; and with or without a “link” capacitor). Alternatively, Oettinger discloses the link capacitor (C2) and amplifier (T1, T2).
With respect to claim 17, Park discloses the primary device further includes an interface (par 66) for data transmission to an external unit; and the control unit is designed to transmit the output signal via the interface to the external unit (par 66).
Park discloses that a foreign object detection alarm is transmitted to an external device, including “portable terminal, an electronic device which is mounted on vehicles, an electronic device which is connected to a home network, a display device, a speaker device and the like”.
With respect to claim 18, Park discloses the interface is or includes a network interface (par 66). At least the alarm transmission to the “home network” would obviously include a network “interface” of unknown and undefined configuration.
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Oettinger and Park combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 14-15, respectively.
With respect to claim 6, Oettinger discloses:
measuring a secondary power parameter (via 118) of the secondary device when the first operating mode is activated; and
controlling a primary frequency at which the primary resonant circuit is excited (par 25) in such a way that a predetermined value of the secondary power parameter is obtained (current can only flow through R1 and create a measurable voltage drop across R2 when the controller is toggling the inverter switches).
With respect to claim 7, Oettinger discloses the secondary power parameter is or includes a primary current (via R1, R2 and 118; see art rejection of claim 16) or an input current of the primary device.
With respect to claim 9, Oettinger discloses the standby operating parameter comprises a primary current (via R1, R2 and 118; see art rejection of claim 16) or an input current of the primary device.
With respect to claim 10, Oettinger discloses detecting the target object in the detection area comprises comparing the standby operating parameter with a predetermined threshold value (fig 9, fig 10, step 202, fig 11, step 272; par 42-44, 46, 53).
With respect to claim 11, Oettinger discloses determining the secondary power parameter based on calibration data or a characteristic curve (see curves of figs 3-8).
With respect to claim 12, Oettinger discloses determining a distance between the target object and the primary device when the target object is detected in the detection area (fig 7; par 35). Oettinger expressly discloses the presence of a foreign object affects the frequency of the pulse signals of the second operating mode. The relative size and distance of the foreign object will inherently affect the decay of this signal as well. Larger/closer objects will have a greater affect than smaller/remote ones.
With respect to claim 13, Oettinger discloses the output signal includes a switching signal and/or a warning signal (the reduction and/or termination of wireless power transfer is a “switching” signal).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Seong in view of Park.
Seong discloses an interface for data transmission to the receiver, but not an external unit. Park discloses the recited limitations of claims 17-18, as discussed above. Seong and Park are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with foreign object detection. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Seong alarm to be transmitted to an external unit, as taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the range of the alarm. If the user is not immediately adjacent to the system, the Park alarm transmission would enable remote notification.
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 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
Prosecution Insights