DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a non-final rejection in response to the filing of the application on 08/30/2025. 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.
Claims 5,9,14,15 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.
Claim 5, recites the limitation "the pallet …". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim 5 is supposed to be depending on claim 2 instead of claim 1, please correct.
Claim 9 recites the limitation: “wherein the communication module is associated with the pallet, and a wireless data communication transceiver located between the control and the communication module wirelessly transfers the data between the controller and the communication module”, There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim 9 depends on claim 8, that depend on claim 1, However, “the pallet” is recited in claim 2, instead of claim 1. Please correct.
This claim 5 is supposed to be depending on claim 2 instead of claim 1, please correct.
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
“wherein if the component passes the test, the master computer sends a signal to the motor to move the conveyor belt so that the pallet leaves the testing station.”,
as per claim 14, the limitation “if” is a conditional statement without corresponding "else" statements. If these limitations are not performed, then there is no defined process to be performed. The examiner understands that in these claims, the open conditional language causes these limitations to be omitted,
there is no limitation of what happens is the components does not passes the test.
Processes can be considered as a series of steps to achieve a claimed task hence making the claim indefinite, because the claims are a conditional method step. When executing a process, each step is performed. However, upon reaching an "IF-THEN-ELSE" logical block, each TRUE/FALSE option is equally likely. A process step that includes only an "IF-THEN" logical question means that THEN result only occurs when the answer is TRUE. An answer equally likely is FALSE and therefore the THEN result will not occur. There is a question as to whether the step is even performed, especially if the condition is something that’s only going to be available to someone with the invention in hand as opposed to a description of the invention. It’s difficult/impossible to determine the scope of the claim because if the “if” is not true the claim adds nothing and is not further limiting.
The Examiner takes further guidance from the MPEP § 2106(11)C on how to handle these logical blocks. Specifically, "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation." It is the Examiner's position that when a claimed invention includes a logical block that suggests another choice (FALSE), then the resulting action is not limiting as it may never be performed.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this claim as best understood.
In addition, claim 14 and 15 recites the limitation: “the master computer …”, There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim 14 depends on claim 11, that depend on claim 1, However, “the master computer” is recited in claim 12, instead of claim 11. Please correct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-8,10,11,14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al, US Patent Application Publication (US 2014/0217966 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schneider et al discloses a wireless power system (Figs 1-6, par. [0027],[0029],[0034],[0041]) of a testing system (see testing systems in Figs 1-6), the wireless power system comprising:
a transmitter (250, 488) associated with an assembly rail (170,171,290,191,190) (see Figs 5-6; par. [0025],[0036]-[0037],[0040]-[0042]); and
a receiver (240, 487) associated with a component (vehicle), wherein the transmitter (250,488) transfers wireless power to the receiver (see Fig. 5-6, paragraphs [0031]-[0032],[0035],[0037],[0038]-[0044],
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 1, including a pallet connected to the component (vehicle), and the pallet moves relative to the assembly rail (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0028], [0030],[0036]-[0040] disclosing the pallet that moves relative to the assembly rail).
PNG
media_image2.png
605
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 1 including a power source (energy source in Fig 5) that supplies power to the transmitter (250,488), and the transmitter (250,488) sends a wireless power signal to the receiver (240,487) to wirelessly power the component during a test (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0011],[0036],[0041], claims 1,9).
Regarding claim 4, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 3, wherein one of electromagnetic resonance or induction is used to wirelessly transfer power from the transmitter (250,488) to the receiver (240,487) (see electromagnetic field power transmission signal in Fig 5, par. [0003],[0013],[0015],[0029]-[0032], claims 1,7-8,14-15).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 2, wherein the receiver (240,487,140) is connected to the pallet by a first attachment mechanism (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0028], [0030],[0036]-[0040] disclosing wherein the receiver is connected to the pallet by a first attachment mechanism), and the transmitter (250,488) is connected to the assembly rail by a second attachment mechanism (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0028], [0030],[0036]-[0040] disclosing the transmitter connected to the assembly rail by a second attachment mechanism).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 5 wherein the first attachment mechanism and the second attachment mechanism are each a threaded fastener or a screw (See screws mechanism in Figs 5-6, and par. [0007], [0028], [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 1 including a connector that connects the component (vehicle) to the receiver (240,487,140), wherein power travels from the receiver (240,487,140), through the connector, and to the component for testing (see connector in Figs 5-6 used for alignment tool, verification and optimization tool and par. [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0030],[0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 1 including a controller (502), a display (501) associated with the controller (502), and a communication module (network interface inside 502), and data (par. [0011] and [0034]) obtained during a test is wirelessly transferred through a two-way wireless signal between the communication module (network interface inside 502) and the controller (502) and shown on the display (501) (see Fig 4, par. [0024],[0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 8 wherein the controller (502) sends a signal to the transmitter (250,488) through a wired line (see structure below the pavement in Fig 5) to control one-way transfer of wireless power from the transmitter (250,488) to the receiver (240,487) during testing (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0011],[0036],[0041], claims 1,9).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 1 including a motor (see par. [0007],[0013], claim 1,10,11), a conveyor belt (Fig 5) moved by the motor, a connection station, a testing station (Fig 5-6), and a disconnection station, and the pallet (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0028], [0030],[0036]-[0040] disclosing the pallet that moves relative to the assembly rail) with the component attached to the pallet moves along the production line from the connection station, to the testing station, to the disconnection station along the conveyor belt (see Figs 5-6 and par. [0028], [0030],[0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 11 wherein if the component (vehicle) passes the test (see Fig 5-6), the master computer (501) sends a signal to the motor to move the conveyor belt (Fig 5) so that the pallet leaves the testing station (see Fig 4-6, par. [0024],[0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 11 wherein once when testing is completed at the testing station, the master computer (501) sends a signal to the motor to move the conveyor belt so that the pallet leaves the testing station and moves to the disconnection station where the component (vehicle) is disconnected from the pallet (see Fig 4-6, par. [0024],[0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al US Patent Application Publication (US 2014/0217966 A1) in view of Qiu et al US Patent Application Publication (US 2020/0044491 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider et al discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 8 wherein the communication module is associated with the pallet (see Fig 4-6, par. [0024]-[0038]);
Schneider et al does not clearly disclose a wireless data communication transceiver located between the control and the communication module wirelessly transfers the data between the controller and the communication module.
However, Qiu et al is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses a wireless charging system with multiple communication modes (see Figs 1-12) and further discloses a wireless data communication transceiver (104,106) located between the control (20) and the communication module (56) wirelessly transfers the data between the controller (20) and the communication module (56) (See Figs 1-2; par.[0023]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schneider et al with the teaching of Qiu et al by including a wireless data communication transceiver located between the control and the communication module wirelessly transfers the data between the controller and the communication module as taught in Qiu et al in order to provide an electronic device which is a combination of a radio transmitter and a receiver, in which can both transmit and receive radio waves using an antenna, for communication purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 12,13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, The prior art of record does not clearly suggest or discloses the wireless power system as recited in claim 11 including a master computer, wherein the testing station comprises a plurality of testing stations each including a controller, a sensor, and a display, wherein when each of the sensors detect the pallet at one of the plurality of testing stations, a signal is sent to the master computer to send a signal to the motor to stop the conveyor belt so that a test can be performed, and the controller sends a signal to the transmitter to begin the transfer of wireless power to from the transmitter to the receiver to power the test.
In order to consider claim 12 for allowability purposes, this claim also needs to include the limitations from base claim 11 into independent claim 1.
Claim 13 has been objected since claim 13 depends on claim 12.
Examiner Note
9. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights