NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This non-final office action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/826,987, which is a broadening reissue application of U.S. Application No. 16/548,345 (hereinafter the “345 Application"), entitled WIRELESS POWER TRANSMITTER, WIRELESS POWER RECEIVER, AND CONTROL METHODS THEREOF, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,641,221 (hereinafter the “221 Patent").
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-28 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 1-26 are allowed.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected.
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on September 6, 2024 (hereinafter the “2024 Preliminary Amendment”) along with the filing of the present application. In the 2024 Preliminary Amendment, patent claims 1-5 and 8-26 were unchanged, claim 6 was amended with no markings and new claims 27 and 28 were added. Furthermore, the specification was amended to change cross noting information.
Therefore, claims 1-28 are pending and will be examined.
II. PRIORITY
Examiners acknowledge the Applicant’s claim that present application is a reissue application of the 345 Application, now the 221 Patent. Examiners further acknowledge the claim that the 345 application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/5625,410, filed June 16, 2017 (hereinafter the “410 Parent Application”), now U.S. Patent No. 11,206,059. Examiners further acknowledge the claim of foreign priority to Korean Application No. KR10-2016-0100785, filed August 8, 2016. Examiners finally acknowledge the claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/351,021, filed June 16, 2016.
III. OBJECTION TO CLAIM AMENDMENTS
37 C.F.R. 1.173 Reissue specification, drawings, and amendments.
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
(g) Amendments made relative to the patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application.
The amendments to the claims in the 2024 Preliminary Amendment are objected to because they are improper because they are not made with respect to the original patent, i.e., the 221 Patent, which includes the Certificate of Correction on April 16, 2024 (hereinafter the “2024 Certificate of Correction”). The applicant should include any changes, additions, or deletions that were made by a certificate of correction to the original patent grant in the reissue application without underlining or bracketing. See MPEP §1411.01. Since claim 6 was corrected via the 2024 Certificate of Correction, it should be identified as “Original” and should include those changes provided in the 2024 Certificate of Correction. Appropriate correction is required.
VI. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112:
(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.
VI.A. Indefiniteness Rejections of Claims 27 and 28
Claims 27 and 28 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. Both claims require the receiver to “provide an indication that a user can recognize.” However, the claims do not define or provide guidance the nature of the indication. Specifically, what is the nature of the indication that make it recognizable by some unknown/undefined user? Examiners find the claims do not provide any guidance on what the indications are. Nor are any such indications defined or described or supported in the specification of the 221 Patent.
Furthermore, Examiners find this limitation is indefinite on the basis that this limitation appears to require the presence and subjective action of a user in combination with the receiver, such the indication must be one such that user “can” recognize. Is a user a required part of the claims? How does a person of ordinary skill in the art know whether the user can recognize the indication?
In view of the forgoing, Examiners are unable to determine what structures or programming within the receiver that are implied or required to provide an indication that a user can recognize. Accordingly, Examiners conclude the claim phrase is indefinite.
V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
V.A. Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01(IV). Following an independent review of the claims in view of the specification herein, Examiners find that Patent Owner has not provided any lexicographic definitions related to claim terms with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision.
V.B. Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183.
As noted in Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015), there is a presumption that claim terms with the word “means” invoke §112(f) and that claim terms without the word “means” do not. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. This presumption is rebuttable if a challenger demonstrates that a claim term either fails to “recite sufficiently definite structure” (WIT1) or else recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function” (WIT2) Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. WIT1 and WIT2 are in the alternative and thus a challenger need only demonstrate one of WIT1 or WIT2 for the claims to invoke §112(f). The presumption against means-plus-function claiming is not “strong” and that a challenger need not show that the limitation is essentially devoid of anything that can be construed as structure; rather a challenger need only show that the structure is not sufficient for performing the claimed function. See Id. Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. 4514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II) and Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351.
Examiners find herein that claims 1-28 include one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112 (6th ¶) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows.
B1. FL #1: “controller…” (Claims 1-6)
A first means-plus-function phrase is recited in claims 1-6, which recites “a controller…” or hereinafter FL #1. Examiners determine herein that FL #1 meets the test of Williamson as discussed above and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The Examiners find that FL #1 in claim 1 recites:
a controller, …
wherein the controller is configured to:
after the driving power is received through the resonant circuit, identify whether a near-field communication (NFC) tag is detected or not, wherein the NFC tag is external to a wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver, and
based on identifying that the external NFC tag is detected, transmit, by using the communication module, a power receiving unit (PRU) advertisement signal for establishing a communication connection with the wireless power transmitter, wherein the PRU advertisement signal includes first information indicating that an NFC receiver included in the wireless power receiver is affected by a wireless power transmission, to the wireless power transmitter.
(B1)(a) Claim Phrase FL #1 Functional
Examiners find that FL #1 is functional. Examines find this limitation recites combination of generic structures of a controller, along with special functions, i.e., detecting and NFC tag and transmitting a special signal to the wireless power transmitter. Thus, Examiners find FL #1 is a computer implemented limitation. While Examiners do recognize some generic structures directed to this controller, Examiners find FL #1 is functional on the basis of the special functions being performed by this controller.
Examiners further note that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the function within FL #1 will have its ordinary and accustomed meaning.
(B1)(b) Claim Phrase FL #1 Invokes
FL #1 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "means ... for" type language is recited. While the FL #1 uses the term controller, Examiners find this term is being used as a generic structure, but a controller itself is not a sufficient structure for performing the special functions. Specifically, Examiners do not find a sufficient algorithm or programming manifested in FL #1 for performing this programming function. A microprocessor or general-purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm. See MPEP §2181(II)(B). Thus, while FL #1 does recite some structure, i.e., a controller, this structure alone are not sufficient structures for performing the entire function of FL #1. Specifically, Examiners find the specific programming or algorithm is missing from FL #1. Such findings are confirmed in the 221 Patent at col. 7, lines 37-40 which states “[t]he controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control.” Thus, the controller alone is not sufficient, but the algorithm or programming is “required for control.”
In view of the forgoing findings, Examiners find that while controller implies some structure, i.e., a generic controller, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “controller…” in FL #1 as the name of a sufficient structure for performing the functions recited in FL #1 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(f). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, Examiners are relying on WIT2 as discussed above. Rather Examiners find that controller merely used in a generic sense as a nonce term equivalent to means as a generic base structure in association with special functions. Accordingly, Examiners do not find that the simple use of controller is a sufficient structure for performing the claimed special functions recited in FL #1 and thus conclude FL #1 invokes interpretation under §112(f).
(B1)(c) Corresponding Structure
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
Based on a review of the entirety of FL #1 and the specification of the 221 Patent, Examiners col. 7, lines 36-43 states:
The controller 252 may control an overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250. The controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control. The controller 252 may be implemented in the form of a CPU, a microprocessor, a minicomputer, or the like.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of detecting the NFC tag is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent, comprising step 1820 causing an operation in NFC receiver mode wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a radio wave” and detects the NFC tag “on the basis of whether a feedback radio wave corresponding to the transmitted radio wave has been received” or “the wireless power receiver 250 may analyze information included in the received feedback radio wave, and thereby may determine whether the relevant feedback radio wave is received from the NFC tag.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 13-27.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of transmitting information is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent at step 1830 wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a signal including information indicating the protected NFC” wherein the “[t]he information indicating the protected NFC may indicate that wireless power receiver 250 is designed for protecting NFC tag circuit.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 29-37.
Based on these cited portions of the 221 Patent, Examiners find a combination of a CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer, operating using a program or algorithm read from a storage device “is required for control” and thus provide the basis for the corresponding structures. Furthermore, the appropriate programming/algorithm for performing the functions is provided above wherein the programming causes the CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer to control the wireless power receiver to transmit a radio, analyze feedback radio wave to determine the presence of an NFC tag, and then transmit a signal including information indicating whether the NFC is protected by the wireless power receiver. Accordingly, FL #1 is limited to these corresponding structures.
B2. FL #2: “controller…” (Claims 7-16)
A further means-plus-function phrase is recited in claims 7-16, which recites “a controller…” or hereinafter FL #2. Examiners determine herein that FL #2 meets the test of Williamson as discussed above and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The Examiners find that FL #2 in claim 7 recites:
a controller, …
wherein the controller is configured to: after the driving power or the charging power is received, identify whether a near-field communication (NFC) tag is detected or not, wherein the NFC tag is external to a wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver,
based on identifying that the external NFC tag is not detected and an NFC receiver included in the wireless power receiver is not affected by a wireless power transmission, transmit, by using the communication module and over a communication connection established between the wireless power receiver and the wireless power transmitter, a signal including first information indicating that the NFC receiver included in the wireless power receiver is not affected by the wireless power transmission, to the wireless power transmitter.
(B2)(a) Claim Phrase FL #2 Functional
Examiners find that FL #2 is functional. Examines find this limitation recites combination of generic structures of a controller, along with special functions, i.e., detecting and NFC tag and transmitting a special signal to the wireless power transmitter. Thus, Examiners find FL #2 is a computer implemented limitation. While Examiners do recognize some generic structures directed to this controller, Examiners find FL #2 is functional on the basis of the special functions being performed by this controller.
Examiners further note that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the function within FL #2 will have its ordinary and accustomed meaning.
(B2)(b) Claim Phrase FL #2 Invokes
FL #2 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "means ... for" type language is recited. While the FL #2 uses the term controller, Examiners find this term is being used as a generic structure, but a controller itself is not a sufficient structure for performing the special functions. Specifically, Examiners do not find a sufficient algorithm or programming manifested in FL #2 for performing this programming function. A microprocessor or general-purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm. See MPEP §2181(II)(B). Thus, while FL #2 does recite some structure, i.e., a controller, this structure alone are not sufficient structures for performing the entire function of FL #2. Specifically, Examiners find the specific programming or algorithm is missing from FL #2. Such findings are confirmed in the 221 Patent at col. 7, lines 37-40 which states “[t]he controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control.” Thus, the controller alone is not sufficient, but the algorithm or programming is “required for control.”
In view of the forgoing findings, Examiners find that while controller implies some structure, i.e., a generic controller, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “controller…” in FL #2 as the name of a sufficient structure for performing the functions recited in FL #2 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(f). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, Examiners are relying on WIT2 as discussed above. Rather Examiners find that controller merely used in a generic sense as a nonce term equivalent to means as a generic base structure in association with special functions. Accordingly, Examiners do not find that the simple use of controller is a sufficient structure for performing the claimed special functions recited in FL #2 and thus conclude FL #2 invokes interpretation under §112(f).
(B2)(c) Corresponding Structure
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
Based on a review of the entirety of FL #2 and the specification of the 221 Patent, Examiners col. 7, lines 36-43 states:
The controller 252 may control an overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250. The controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control. The controller 252 may be implemented in the form of a CPU, a microprocessor, a minicomputer, or the like.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of detecting the NFC tag is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent, comprising step 1820 causing an operation in NFC receiver mode wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a radio wave” and detects the NFC tag “on the basis of whether a feedback radio wave corresponding to the transmitted radio wave has been received” or “the wireless power receiver 250 may analyze information included in the received feedback radio wave, and thereby may determine whether the relevant feedback radio wave is received from the NFC tag.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 13-27.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of transmitting information is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent at step 1830 wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a signal including information indicating the protected NFC” wherein the “[t]he information indicating the protected NFC may indicate that wireless power receiver 250 is designed for protecting NFC tag circuit.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 29-37.
Based on these cited portions of the 221 Patent, Examiners find a combination of a CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer, operating using a program or algorithm read from a storage device “is required for control” and thus provide the basis for the corresponding structures. Furthermore, the appropriate programming/algorithm for performing the functions is provided above wherein the programming causes the CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer to control the wireless power receiver to transmit a radio, analyze feedback radio wave to determine the presence of an NFC tag, and then transmit a signal including information indicating whether the NFC is protected by the wireless power receiver. Accordingly, FL #2 is limited to these corresponding structures.
B3. FL #3: “controller…” (Claim 27)
A further means-plus-function phrase is recited in claim 27, which recites “a controller…” or hereinafter FL #3. Examiners determine herein that FL #3 meets the test of Williamson as discussed above and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The Examiners find that FL #3 in claim 27 recites:
a controller comprising circuitry, …
wherein the controller is configured to:
after receiving the driving power through the resonant circuit, control the NFC module to apply an NFC power to the NFC antenna for detecting an NFC tag, wherein the NFC tag is external to the wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver, and
in response to detecting the NFC tag, transmit, via the communication circuitry, a communication signal indicating that the NFC tag has been detected to the wireless power transmitter and provide an indication that a user can recognize.
(B3)(a) Claim Phrase FL #3 Functional
Examiners find that FL #3 is functional. Examines find this limitation recites combination of generic structures of a controller, along with special functions, i.e., detecting and NFC tag and transmitting a special signal to the wireless power transmitter and the user. Thus, Examiners find FL #3 is a computer implemented limitation. While Examiners do recognize some generic structures directed to this controller, Examiners find FL #3 is functional on the basis of the special functions being performed by this controller.
Examiners further note that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the function within FL #3 will have its ordinary and accustomed meaning.
(B3)(b) Claim Phrase FL #3 Invokes
FL #3 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "means ... for" type language is recited. While the FL #3 uses the term controller, Examiners find this term is being used as a generic structure, but a controller itself is not a sufficient structure for performing the special functions. Specifically, Examiners do not find a sufficient algorithm or programming manifested in FL #3 for performing this programming function. A microprocessor or general-purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm. See MPEP §2181(II)(B). Thus, while FL #3 does recite some structure, i.e., a controller, this structure alone are not sufficient structures for performing the entire function of FL #3. Specifically, Examiners find the specific programming or algorithm is missing from FL #3. Such findings are confirmed in the 221 Patent at col. 7, lines 37-40 which states “[t]he controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control.” Thus, the controller alone is not sufficient, but the algorithm or programming is “required for control.”
In view of the forgoing findings, Examiners find that while controller implies some structure, i.e., a generic controller, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “controller…” in FL #3 as the name of a sufficient structure for performing the functions recited in FL #3 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(f). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, Examiners are relying on WIT2 as discussed above. Rather Examiners find that controller merely used in a generic sense as a nonce term equivalent to means as a generic base structure in association with special functions. Accordingly, Examiners do not find that the simple use of controller is a sufficient structure for performing the claimed special functions recited in FL #3 and thus conclude FL #3 invokes interpretation under §112(f).
(B3)(c) Corresponding Structure
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
Based on a review of the entirety of FL #3 and the specification of the 221 Patent, Examiners col. 7, lines 36-43 states:
The controller 252 may control an overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250. The controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control. The controller 252 may be implemented in the form of a CPU, a microprocessor, a minicomputer, or the like.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of detecting the NFC tag is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent, comprising step 1820 causing an operation in NFC receiver mode wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a radio wave” and detects the NFC tag “on the basis of whether a feedback radio wave corresponding to the transmitted radio wave has been received” or “the wireless power receiver 250 may analyze information included in the received feedback radio wave, and thereby may determine whether the relevant feedback radio wave is received from the NFC tag.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 13-27.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of transmitting information is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent at step 1830 wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a signal including information indicating the protected NFC” wherein the “[t]he information indicating the protected NFC may indicate that wireless power receiver 250 is designed for protecting NFC tag circuit.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 29-37.
Based on these cited portions of the 221 Patent, Examiners find a combination of a CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer, operating using a program or algorithm read from a storage device “is required for control” and thus provide the basis for the corresponding structures. Furthermore, the appropriate programming/algorithm for performing the functions is provided above wherein the programming causes the CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer to control the wireless power receiver to transmit a radio, analyze feedback radio wave to determine the presence of an NFC tag, and then transmit a signal including information indicating whether the NFC has been detected.
However, other than a repeat of the claim language, Examiners do not find the specification of the 221 Patent provides a disclosure of any structures or programming for providing an “indication that user can recognize.” Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See MPEP §2181(IV). Accordingly, Examiners do not find the specification clearly links the function of providing an indication that a user can recognize to sufficient corresponding structures.
Nevertheless, as provided above, a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is limited to the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. Thus, FL #3 will be limited to those structures disclosed above, without regard to the function of providing an indication that a user can recognize.
B4. FL #4: “controller…” (Claim 28)
A further means-plus-function phrase is recited in claim 28, which recites “a controller…” or hereinafter FL #4. Examiners determine herein that FL #4 meets the test of Williamson as discussed above and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The Examiners find that FL #4 in claim 28 recites:
a controller comprising circuitry, …
wherein the controller is configured to:
after receiving the driving power through the resonant circuit:
in accordance with the NFC module being in an NFC reader mode, control the NFC module to detect an NFC tag, wherein the NFC tag is external to the wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver, and
in accordance with the NFC module being in an NFC tag mode, perform a mode change from the NFC tag mode to the NFC reader mode, and in response to performing the mode change, control the NFC module to detect the NFC tag, and
in response to detecting the NFC tag, transmit, via the communication circuitry, a communication signal indicating that the NFC tag has been detected to the wireless power transmitter and provide an indication that a user can recognize.
(B4)(a) Claim Phrase FL #4 Functional
Examiners find that FL #4 is functional. Examines find this limitation recites combination of generic structures of a controller, along with special functions, i.e., changing modes, detecting and NFC tag and transmitting a special signal to the wireless power transmitter and the user. Thus, Examiners find FL #4 is a computer implemented limitation. While Examiners do recognize some generic structures directed to this controller, Examiners find FL #4 is functional on the basis of the special functions being performed by this controller.
Examiners further note that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the functions within FL #4 will have their ordinary and accustomed meaning.
(B4)(b) Claim Phrase FL #4 Invokes
FL #4 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "means ... for" type language is recited. While the FL #4 uses the term controller, Examiners find this term is being used as a generic structure, but a controller itself is not a sufficient structure for performing the special functions. Specifically, Examiners do not find a sufficient algorithm or programming manifested in FL #4 for performing this programming function. A microprocessor or general-purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm. See MPEP §2181(II)(B). Thus, while FL #4 does recite some structure, i.e., a controller, this structure alone are not sufficient structures for performing the entire function of FL #4. Specifically, Examiners find the specific programming or algorithm is missing from FL #4. Such findings are confirmed in the 221 Patent at col. 7, lines 37-40 which states “[t]he controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control.” Thus, the controller alone is not sufficient, but the algorithm or programming is “required for control.”
In view of the forgoing findings, Examiners find that while controller implies some structure, i.e., a generic controller, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “controller…” in FL #4 as the name of a sufficient structure for performing the functions recited in FL #4 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(f). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, Examiners are relying on WIT2 as discussed above. Rather Examiners find that controller merely used in a generic sense as a nonce term equivalent to means as a generic base structure in association with special functions. Accordingly, Examiners do not find that the simple use of controller is a sufficient structure for performing the claimed special functions recited in FL #4 and thus conclude FL #4 invokes interpretation under §112(f).
(B4)(c) Corresponding Structure
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
Based on a review of the entirety of FL #4 and the specification of the 221 Patent, Examiners col. 7, lines 36-43 states:
The controller 252 may control an overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250. The controller 252 may control the overall operation of the wireless power receiver 250 by using an algorithm, a program, or an application which is read from a storage 259 and is required for control. The controller 252 may be implemented in the form of a CPU, a microprocessor, a minicomputer, or the like.
Furthermore, a first part of the corresponding programming or algorithm is disclosed at col. 25, lines 58-62, which states “[w]hen the wireless power receiver 250 has previously been set to an NFC tag mode, the wireless power receiver 250 may perform a mode transition from the NFC tag mode to the NFC reader mode, in response to the reception of the long beacon power.”
Furthermore, the programming or algorithm for the function of detecting the NFC tag is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent, comprising step 1820 causing an operation in NFC receiver mode wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a radio wave” and detects the NFC tag “on the basis of whether a feedback radio wave corresponding to the transmitted radio wave has been received” or “the wireless power receiver 250 may analyze information included in the received feedback radio wave, and thereby may determine whether the relevant feedback radio wave is received from the NFC tag.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 13-27.
Furthermore, the particular algorithm for the function of transmitting information is illustrated in FIG. 18 of the 221 Patent at step 1830 wherein the wireless power receiver 250 “transmits a signal including information indicating the protected NFC” wherein the “[t]he information indicating the protected NFC may indicate that wireless power receiver 250 is designed for protecting NFC tag circuit.” See 221 Patent col. 30, lines 29-37.
Based on these cited portions of the 221 Patent, Examiners find a combination of a CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer, operating using a program or algorithm read from a storage device “is required for control” and thus provide the basis for the corresponding structures. Furthermore, the appropriate programming/algorithm for performing the functions is provided above wherein the programming causes the CPU, microprocessor or a minicomputer to control the wireless power receiver change modes from an NFC tag mode to NFC reader mode, to transmit a radio, analyze feedback radio wave to determine the presence of an NFC tag, and then transmit a signal including information indicating whether the NFC has been detected.
However, other than a repeat of the claim language, Examiners do not find the specification of the 221 Patent provides a disclosure of any structures or programming for providing an “indication that user can recognize.” Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See MPEP §2181(IV). Accordingly, Examiners do not find the specification clearly links the function of providing an indication that a user can recognize to sufficient corresponding structures.
Nevertheless, as provided above, a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is limited to the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. Thus, FL #4 will be limited to those structures disclosed above, without regard to the function of providing an indication that a user can recognize.
V.C. Conclusion of Claim Interpretation
FL #1-FL#4 will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as provided above. Because the remaining limitations in claims 1-28 do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and are not lexicographically defined, they will be interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
VI. ADDITIONAL CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112:
(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.
VI.A. Indefiniteness Rejections of Claims 27 and 28
Claim limitations FL #3 and FL #4 invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure or material for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure or material to the functions. Specifically, as discussed above in the claim interpretation section, Examiners do not find the specification clearly links the function of “to provide an indication that a user can recognize” to sufficient corresponding structures. Therefore, claims 27 and 28, including FL #3 and FL #4, respectively, are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
VII. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1-26 are allowed.
Claims 27 and 28 would be allowed if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 as provided above are overcome.
Examiners find the closest prior art, U.S. Patent No. 9,787,366 to Shirani-Mehr et al. (hereinafter “Shirani-Mehr”), discloses a similar wireless power transmitter and wireless power receiver wherein the wireless power receiver sends a communication signal indicating whether a nearby NFC tag is protected or not. However, Shirani-Mehr does not disclose the manner to which the wireless power receiver attains this information. Specifically, Examiners do not find Shirani-Mehr discloses or teach the wireless power receiver itself performing detection of any nearby NFC tags in the manner as required in claims 1-28 in this application as interpreted above.
VIII. PRIOR OR CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
Applicant is reminded of the obligation apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the 221 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
IX. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
X. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claims 1-26 are allowed.
Claims 27-28 are rejected.
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The Examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MY TRANG TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992