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
Applicants' arguments filed June 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Baarman senses the power requirements of the receiver (low, medium, high). Then, when the correct number of coils are energized based on this determined power, the transmitter will draw this amount of power from the power source. Thus, by determining a required power level of the receiver, Baarman is also determining the (future) power level of the power source.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The current title is too generic. It does not indicate to which aspect of wireless power the claims are directed. Adding “transmitter” to the title is not sufficient.
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, 4-10, 12, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baarman (US 9,231,411).
With respect to claim 1, Baarman discloses an apparatus for a WPT transmitter (fig 2, 6-20, 23-24, 28; col. 4-7, 9-13), the apparatus comprising:
a power input (see at least fig 9A, the connection between the Inverter or Adaptive Power Supply and the rest of the circuit; also, all electrical systems require a source of power, including the Baarman transmitter, and would have an “input” to do so) arranged to receive electrical power from a power source (not claimed);
first transmitter (TX) path circuitry arranged to be coupled to the power input and to a first set of at least one transmission coil (figs 6-7, 9A, 20 show selectable path circuitry for individual coils; figs 8, 10-19 show one “first” group of energized coils that receive power through a “first” path circuity);
second TX path circuitry arranged to be coupled to the power input and to a second set of at least one transmission coil (figs 8, 10-19 show a “second” group of energized coils that receive power through a “second” path circuitry);
transmitter mode selector circuitry (the circuitry that executes the flowchart of fig 23; col. 12-13 bridging paragraph) arranged to selectively couple one of the first TX path circuitry and the second TX path circuitry (steps 406, 408between the power input and the first or the second set of at least one transmission coil in response to a path selection signal; and
controller circuitry (evidenced by the successful reaction to different receiver power levels; fig 17-19; col. 12, lines 12-58) communicatively coupled to the power input and to the transmitter mode selector circuitry, the controller circuitry operative to determine a power level of the power source from among a first power level (low in fig 17) and a second power level (medium to high in figs 18-19; the power requirements of the receiver will define how much power the power source needs to provide), and to generate the path selection signal based on the determined power level of the power source (the paths are selected, as evidenced by the figures that show that specific coils are energized);
wherein the first TX path circuitry is operative to provide WPT transmission at a greater efficiency to a WPT receiver when the power source is at the first power level than when the power source is at the second power level (fig 17 – one energized coil would be more efficient in sending power to a low-power receiver than would a group of nine coils); and wherein the second TX path circuitry is operative to provide WPT transmission at a greater efficiency to a WPT receiver when the power source is at the second power level than when the power source is at the first power level (the corollary to the other half of the claim – the high-power load requires nine energized coils. This nine-coil path is more efficient than a single-coil path).
As noted above, Baarman discloses that communicating the power requirements of the receiver provides the controller circuitry with information to determine the power level of the power source. When the receiver requires low power, only one coil is energized, and the power source provides a low level of power (i.e. the transmitter draws low power from the source). When the receiver requires high power, many coils are energized, and the power source provides a high level of power. Thus, the determination of the receiver power level also provides a determination of the power source power level.
The Examiner also notes that the power source is not claimed. It is part of the description of what the power input is arranged to be connected to. The claim also does not recite any sensors (or data inputs) to explicitly require the controller circuitry to directly monitor this (unclaimed) power source. Baarman anticipates the “operative to determine” language of the claim. The Applicants may consider more narrowly defining what the controller circuitry is actually doing (instead of just the end result/determination). This may include sensors in specific locations, comparators to compare a sensed parameter to a threshold, etc.
With respect to claim 4, Baarman discloses the first TX path circuitry and the second TX path circuitry include at least one shared portion of circuitry (see at least fig 9A-B). In figure 9A, Baarman shows that the different paths share a common inverter (left). In figure 9B, Baarman shows that the different paths can include common coils.
With respect to claim 5, Baarman discloses the controller circuitry is operative to (see fig 23-24; col. 12-13):
determine that the power level of the power source is the second power level which is greater than the first power level (the Baarman transmitter can output “medium to high” power, thus, the input to the transmitter is interpreted as “medium to high” [i.e. second power level] as well)
detect a presence of the WPT receiver within WPT proximity (step 404);
in response to detection of the presence of the WPT receiver within the WPT proximity, cause the first transmitter path circuitry to initiate WPT transmission in a low-power mode to the WPT receiver (fig 23, step 406 includes fig 24, step 502 – energizing individual coils. An individual coil would produce a lower/first power level);
receive a power request from the WPT receiver that requests a change in power to be wirelessly transmitted to the WPT receiver (step 512); and
in response to the power request, cause a change the WPT power level to be wirelessly transmitted to the WPT receiver, including changing the path selection signal (step 516).
With respect to claim 6, Baarman discloses the controller circuitry is further operative to: in response to initiation of WPT transmission in the low-power mode to the WPT receiver, transmit information identifying the determined power level of the power source to the WPT receiver (step 512; col. 13, lines 15-17). The Baarman transmitter sends the power level of the selected coils. The receiver responds with an indication whether that is enough power or not.
With respect to claim 7, Baarman discloses the controller circuitry is further operative to: in response to the change of the WPT power level (first iteration through step 512), receive a power optimization request from the WPT receiver that requests a second change in WPT power to be wirelessly transmitted to the WPT receiver (a later iteration through step 512), wherein the second change is a reduction of WPT carrier voltage (what is “enough power” in the receiver changes over time and can both increase and decrease); and in response to the power optimization request, cause the second change in WPT power (the later iteration of step 516).
The flowchart of figure 24 includes repeating steps 512, 514 and 516 multiple times. Each iteration is interpreted as a different receiver request. And each iteration can include any different power level (higher and lower). Thus, over the lifetime of the system, the receiver would inherently request less power on a later iteration than it did during a first iteration.
With respect to claim 8, Baarman discloses the first set of at least one transmission coil and the second set of at least one transmission coil include a common transmission coil (fig 9B).
With respect to claim 9, Baarman discloses the first set of at least one transmission coil and the second set of at least one transmission coil include a plurality of different transmission coils (shown throughout figs 6-20). Baarman discloses many examples where a single transmission array can energize uncommon coils (singular or in groups) for different receivers (by location or by power requirement).
With respect to claim 12, Baarman discloses the controller circuitry is configured to negotiate an extended range of supply power via a supported protocol (fig 24, step 512; col. 13, lines 9-21). Baarman successfully negotiates with its receiver to arrive at an agreed upon power level – thus, it does so “via a supported protocol”. The protocol is not defined, nor does the claim explain what “via” means.
With respect to claim 14, Baarman discloses the controller circuitry is configured to communicate with the WPT receiver via a WP communicate circuit supporting bi-directional communications over a WPT channel (evidenced by the communication of step 512, as cited above – see also col. 13, lines 28-40 for additional communication disclosure).
The Examiner notes that the language of the claim is limited to the controller circuitry – the claim does not positively introduce the communicate circuitry into the claim as a distinct claimed limitation. That the controller communicates “via” another named circuit is not the same as clearly and explicitly reciting that the transmitter comprises the named circuit.
With respect to claim 15, Baarman discloses successful communication (col. 13, lines 28-40. Thus, it is inherently at least one of half-duplex or full-duplex. These are the only two types (half-duplex is communication one at a time; full-duplex is simultaneous communication). There are no other possible options (different or same are the only two choices). The Examiner notes that Baarman’s communication appears to be half-duplex, as each side replies to the other (they don’t talk over each other).
With respect to claim 17, Baarman discloses the controller circuitry is configured to negotiate with the WP receiver for a new operating point for the WPT transmission (step 512).
With respect to claim 18, Baarman discloses the new operating point depends on power needs for a power receiving device including the WPT receiver (step 514 -is the new point “sufficient”?), the currently available power level from the WP transmitter and the control circuitry (Baarman does not disclose that the transmitter can offer more power than it has available), and on predetermined criteria stored by the control circuitry (the entirety of the Baarman disclosure – the claim does not detail any criteria – a vague reference to any “predetermined criteria” is satisfied by Baarman’s disclosure that it follows rules and executes specific flowchart methods).
With respect to claim 19, Baarman discloses the first TX path circuitry is configured to provide a low-power TX path (col. 12, lines 12-13), and the second TX path circuitry is configured to provide a high-power TX path (col. 12, lines 27-28). Baarman explicitly defines the two paths as being for different power levels.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman.
Baarman discloses the first power level is for “low” power receivers and the second power level is for “medium to high” receivers (col. 12). Baarman does not expressly disclose a numerical boundary between these two levels. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the boundary between the Baarman power levels to be “about 5 W). The motivation for doing so would have been to successfully provide power required by receivers.
Selecting a numerical boundary does not affect the structure of the Baarman system.
Scaling the transmitter (to transmit more/less power per each coil) would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). This includes changing the amount of power provided to the Baarman system and/or changing the sizes of the coils themselves.
Further, the claim recites “about” 5W. The claim does not define how far away from 5W the boundary can be while still being “about” 5W. Thus, for whatever power boundary exists in the Baarman system, it could be “about” 5W.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman in view of White (US 2017/0141624).
Baarman discloses a power input, but does not expressly disclose it is a USB connection. White discloses that the input to a wireless power transmitter can be a USB connection (par 24). Baarman discloses one input source is sufficient to operate its transmitter at both power levels. Thus, within the combination, the one White USB input would be sufficient to energize two different Baarman coils (either individually or in groups).
Baarman and White are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Baarman to include a USB input. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known power source. Baarman does not disclose its preferred type of power source, but figure 2 shows that it is known to immediately rectify incoming AC power. This indicates that accepting DC power directly (without rectification) would be acceptable. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered modifying Baarman to include a USB input. While USB protocol includes certain limits on power levels – scaling the Baarman transmitter to operate at lower power levels would have been obvious. Id.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman in view of Ochi (US 2017/0267111).
Baarman discloses the two TX path circuits, but does not expressly disclose only the second include a converter. Ochi discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 2) comprising an input (between 114/202), a first TX path (through bypass), a second TX path (through DC/DC converter 206), wherein the second TX path circuitry includes a voltage level converter circuit (206), and wherein the first TX path circuitry does not include a voltage level converter circuit.
Baarman and Ochi are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitter with controllable power levels. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Baarman to include a bypassable converter, as taught by Ochi. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known technique to provide two selectable power levels to the transmission coil(s).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman in view of Kesler (US 2016/0087687).
With respect to claim 11, Baarman the two RX path circuitries share a common power carrier signal generator circuit. Kesler discloses a wireless power transmitter with an antenna array (see fig 63), wherein the individual resonators are differently configured (par 694-695) and they each include an individual power carrier signal generator circuit (par 696, lines 7-8, “arranged in a grid and coupled to one or more power and control circuits”).
The Examiner notes that the claim only broadly refers to what the generator circuits are “operative to” do – there is no explicit recitation in the claim that they are set/controlled to provide different frequencies. An inverter, for example, can be controlled at different switching times to output different frequencies different times – this is broader than actually controlling that inverter to output frequency A vs frequency B.
Baarman and Kesler are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with individual controlled antennas in an array. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Baarman to include individual generators for the coils, where the generators are operative to output different frequencies. The motivation for doing so would have been to accommodate differently-sized resonators (Kelser par 695). Frequencies would obviously be changed to accommodate changes in the resonator – these can be physical (size, number of turns, material construction), or operational (distance, effective impedance).
With respect to claim 20, the references combine to teach the paths operate at different carrier frequencies, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 11.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman in view of Huang (US 2017/0085115).
Baarman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose communicating with an upstream power source. Huang discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 4; page 3) comprising controller circuitry (420, 440) that is configured to measure an input voltage (at 420) and conduct a message exchange with the power source to determine if the power source is a compatible power source (at 440; par 34).
Baarman and Huang are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Baarman to include the messaging with the power source. The motivation for doing so would have been to known to which power source the transmitter is connected. As detailed by Huang, different sources provide different power levels and this could affect the Baarman transmitter’s capability to satisfy the requirements of high-power receivers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ko (US 2018/0152050) discloses the claimed apparatus (see figs 2-3). The switch selection is in response to load demand (if the receiver can accept high power or if it is an NFC tag that can only accept low power), where the power level of the load determines how much power is drawn from the source. Therefore, Ko’s switch functionality (like Baarman) would be “based on the determined power level of the power source”. Ko is not cited in this Action to solely to maintain finality (adding a new rejection when the claims have not been amended would require a second non-final rejection). The Applicants should consider Ko as being materially relevant to the claims when filing any response.
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 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
