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 25, 2026 (and applied to the supplemental amendment filed May 28) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the §101 rejection, the Applicant contends that the claims are “directed to a specific method for transferring wireless power” (Remarks, page 7). The Examiner disagrees and notes that there are no limitations in the claims regarding the method of transferring (or transmitting) power.
Claim 21 recites “a method for transferring wireless power” in the preamble, but this does not breathe life into the claim. The only actual method steps recited in the body of the claim are “receiving” an SRQ and “transmitting” a data packet based on FSK. The rest of the claim recites wherein clauses that are descriptive of these two steps. There is one wherein clause that recites “wherein the wireless power is transferred…”. This is not a distinct claimed limitation that incorporates wireless power transfer into the claim as a distinct method step. It is written in the passive voice (“is transferred”) to indicate an event that happened to the system – not a distinct action carried out by the system.
Even apparatus claim 28 only vaguely refers to “a converter related to transferring wireless power”. There is no actual wireless power transfer within the scope of the claims.
Furthermore, the Non-Final Rejection clearly cited to established case law and MPEP rules that state that a mental process is still an abstract idea even if it is performed by a computer (instead of a human). The Applicant only points to the claims being an electrical device and do not dispute or rebut this finding.
The §101 rejection is maintained. Receiving a request, formatting a response and transmitting the response are an abstract idea. It is the exchange of information. Narrowly defining the content of the information (the number of bytes, that the byte is hexadecimal, or that the byte encodes message length information) does not overcome this analysis. More narrowly defined information is still information and ineligible subject matter to be patented.
Regarding the art rejection, Park and AbuKhalaf clearly disclose a “data packet having a concrete structure” (Remarks, page 8, bottom). The references’ data packets are not a random collection of bits – rather, they have very specific/concrete structure (Park fig 15, AbuKhalaf fig 4). AbuKhalaf discloses the packet includes contiguous header-message-checksum (see fig 3A) and that the header includes a single byte (par 49) and that the number of bytes in the message is truncated to an integer (Id.). AbuKhalaf does not disclose any fractional bytes – they are obviously integers. It is assumed the Applicant refers to “whole numbers”. Both integers and whole numbers are numbers without fractions or decimal parts, but integers include negative numbers, zero and positive numbers. There can be no negative number of zero number of bytes – the number of bytes must be positive. Thus, they are truncated to a whole number.
While AbuKhalaf does not disclose a hexadecimal header, such features are known in the prior art. The art rejection cites Cheney (US 5,917,840), which discloses that the header is a hexadecimal byte that represents the length of the message (fig 4, item 55; col. 8, lines 27-43). The exact equation for decoding the hexadecimal byte into the value for the length is an obvious design choice. Because using the hexadecimal value to encode message length is generally known, using a specific equation to do so does not overcome the prior art. There are no unexpected benefits derived from changing the decoding equation.
AbuKhalaf is withdrawn as a prior art reference, but the Applicant should consider the reference as being materially relevant and it may be reintroduced into the art rejection in the future.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because the preamble recites “a method for transmitting wireless power” – the body of each claim, however, is directed to communication only. There is no wireless power transmission or reception. The Applicant requests the withdrawal of this objection, but they do not explain why (with amendments or arguments to show why it is incorrect).
Claim 28 is objected to because it is unclear how the converter and communicator/controller are “related to” to the transmitter. The claim does not recite how the components are interconnected to form any type of operable transmitter. For example, the claim omits any source or antenna/coil to actually wirelessly transmit power. Without the structure necessary to complete wireless power transmission, the preamble is incorrect.
Claim 28 is also objected to because the claim is directed to a wireless communication device (like claim 21), not a wireless power transmitter.
Claims 21 and 28 are objected to because it is unclear how the FSK bit (in the SRQ packet) can be related to two or more different cycle amounts. The claims list four numeral cycle values that are joined with “and/or”. But all four are mutually exclusive. If the receiver is using FSK with 512 cycles, it cannot also use 64 cycles (same analysis for all other possibilities). The list should include just the “or”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-23, 27-28 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites a method with the steps of “receiving [] a specific request (SRQ) data pack)”, and “transmitting [] a data packet”. The transferring of information is the abstract idea of a mental process (“including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”). MPEP §2106.04.
A “method which can be performed mentally, or are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas…” MPEP §2164.04(a)(2)(III). “Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions.” Id. Receiving a request and then responding to it are an abstract idea of a mental process.
“Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite the mental process performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” Id (emphasis added). That the method is performed electronically does not change the analysis that the evaluation is an abstract idea.
The rest of the claim recites wherein clauses that describe the information that is received or transmitted. Further defining the information does not change the analysis that the exchange of information is an abstract idea. For example, if the concept of “color” is ineligible, then narrowly defining the color as “red” does not change the underlying eligibility analysis.
One wherein clause recites, “wherein the wireless power is transferred …”. This passive voice phrase indicates an event that happens, to the device, outside the scope of the claim. It is not a distinct method step and does not change the abstract idea analysis. Adding a generic “transferring” power method step would not appear to remedy this issue or overcome this rejection. There needs to be more (e.g. inputting power from a source, converting it or otherwise controlling the power to be something it wasn’t before, and providing that power to a coil to create a wireless power field).
Dependent claims 22-23 and 27 and 27 do not add significantly more. Claims 22-23 recite additional data packets. Adding more information limitations does not overcome the abstract idea analysis. Claim 27 describes the format of the transmitter’s reply data packet. What the information looks like does not add significantly more to the abstract idea analysis.
Independent claim 28 recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as claim 21. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims refer to a generic “converter” and “communicator/controller”. There is no recitation in the claim that these components have any actual control over wireless power reception/transmission. “Merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer to perform an abstract idea” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2105.04(d)(I) (emphasis added).
Like in claim 21, claim 28 lists wherein clauses that either define the information or passively recites that wireless power “is transferred”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 36-38 recite the same data packet features that have already been discussed in the rejection of claims 23-23 and 27. Reciting additional information does not overcome the abstract idea analysis.
None of the claims recite any structure that adds significantly more to the abstract idea analysis. The apparatus claims are directed to a generic device with wireless communication capability to receive a request (i.e. information) and respond with a packet (i.e. information). The exchange of information, without significantly more, is an abstract idea and is ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 21-23, 27-28 and 36-38 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.
Claims 21 and 28 each recite “wherein based on hexadecimal value of the header being …”. This type of language is descriptive. It does not explicitly set forth that the transmitter does, in fact, create a data packet with a hexadecimal header. “based on a hexadecimal value” has not antecedent basis and, therefore, recites a hypothetical (not an explicit feature of the method/apparatus).
The Applicant has established how they intend to define discrete method steps (“receiving”, “transmitting” in claim 21) or controller functionality (“receives”, “transmits”). There is no such language that recites that the claimed method or apparatus actually includes the generation, creation, etc. of a hexadecimal header. “based on” is not a substitute for discrete functional language.
The presence of these words in the claims implies that the hexadecimal value is important, but the manner in which they are recited indicates that they are mere possibilities or hypotheticals. Different readers would draw different conclusions regarding the scope of the claim (does the scope include a hexadecimal header or not?). Thus, the claims are indefinite.
Claims 22-23, 27 and 36-38 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claims 21 and 28.
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 21-23, 27-28 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0044152) in view of Cheney (US 5,917,840).
With respect to claim 21, Park discloses a method (fig 17-18; par 131, 201, 228-237) for transferring wireless power to a wireless power receiver in a wireless power transfer system, the method performed by a wireless power transmitter and comprising:
receiving, from the wireless power receiver in a negotiation phase, a specific request (SRQ) data packet (S1710; par 231, 233).
wherein the SRQ data packet includes information for a number of cycles that make up one FSK bit (par 201, 231, 233), and the information is related to one of 512 cycles, 256 cycles, 128 cycles, and/or 64 cycles (par 201); and
wherein the wireless power transmitter establishes a power transfer contract with the wireless power receiver in the negotiation phase based on the SRQ packet (par 235; par 131 also describes that the transmitter confirms that operation is following a power transfer contract previously created); and
transmitting, to the wireless power receiver in a power transfer phase, a data packet based on the FSK (par 235);
wherein wireless power is transferred to the wireless power receiver based on the power transfer contract in the power transfer phase (par 131);
wherein the data packet includes a header and a message (fig 15);
wherein the number of bytes in the message is truncated to an integer (obvious – this is commonly how data packets are structured, and the reference does not disclose fractions of bits).
Park discloses a method by which a receiver sends an SRQ to request a specific number of cycles that make up an FSK bit and the transmitter/receiver then communicate using that FSK configuration. The Park SRQ comes in a negotiation phase, as illustrated in figure 17. The Park transmitter then responds with a data packet and the transmission of wireless power (unclaimed).
Park does not expressly disclose the checksum (fourth wherein clause) or the features of the data packet defined in the fifth and sixth wherein clauses. Cheney discloses data packets (fig 4; col. 8) are known to include a header (51), message (58) and checksum (59). Cheney further discloses:
wherein the header has a length of one byte that indicates a type of the data packet (col. 8, lines 30-31);
wherein based on a hexadecimal value of the header (col. 8, lines 31-32), there is an equation to convert the hexadecimal value into the message length value (55, see below);
wherein the number of bytes in the message is truncated to an integer (obvious, standard in the art – Cheney does not disclose fractions of bytes).
Cheney discloses that the header includes a hexadecimal value in which is encoded the length of the message. Cheney does not expressly disclose the recited equation. The skilled artisan, however, would have understood that Cheney does disclose an equation for decoding the hexadecimal value into a message length value. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Cheney so that its hexadecimal value is related to its message length according to the recited equation.
The Examiner notes that neither the hexadecimal value nor the recited equation are distinct claimed limitations. The hexadecimal value is a hypothetical. And, should it be present, the equation is merely a description for a numerical relationship. The claim does not require that the transmitter knows this equation and applies it to the hexadecimal value. The claim does not recite the creation of the message and formatting it using the equation.
Park and Cheney are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely data packet structure. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Park to include the packet parts, as taught by Cheney. The motivation for adding the checksum so would have been to detect errors in communication, as is the well-known feature of a checksum. The motivation for adding the hexadecimal value would have been to add more information to the outgoing packet (for the benefit of the unclaimed receiver).
With respect to claim 22, Park discloses the wireless power transmitter transmits an extended capabilities (XCAP) packet to the wireless power receiver in the negotiation phase (par 229).
With respect to claim 23, Park discloses the wireless power transmitter transmits a capabilities (CAP) packet to the wireless power receiver in the negotiation phase (par 229).
Claims 22-23 are mutually exclusive as they separately depend from claim 21. It is therefore permissible to interpret the same Park disclosure as satisfying two different limitations. In claim 22, “extended” is undefined – it has no basis for comparison for what to consider as unextended. Thus, for whatever amount of data is in the Park packet, it is both “CAP” and “XCAP”. Furthermore, there is no use for this data packet – the claim only mentions the transmission of a packet without describing why it is sent, the information contained within it, or any reaction it causes. The Applicant does not address or rebut this interpretation; thus, it is presumed to be correct.
With respect to claim 27, giving the Park packet a new name, “ADT”, is an obvious modification that does not affect the reference or the combination with Cheney. As discussed above, the claims simply recite the electrical properties of the packet – there is no indication in the claim of why it is created, what information it contains, or what reaction it is intended to elicit from the receiver. Simply assigning naming types to the packets that already exist does not overcome the prior art. The Applicant does not address or rebut this interpretation either; thus, it is presumed to be correct.
The combination teaches the data packet but does not expressly disclose how many bytes long it is. 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 combination’s data packet to be seven bytes long. Generally making messages larger/smaller is an obvious modification. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). A similar obviousness interpretation was made in the art rejection of claim 26; it too has not been addressed or rebutted. Thus, applying this same rationale to claim 27 is interpreted as undisputed.
With respect to claims 28 and 36-38, Park and Cheney combine to disclose the wireless power transmitter, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 21-23 and 27, respectively. Park further discloses the structure of the transmitter (fig 4), comprising: a converter (100) related to transferring wireless power to a wireless power receiver; and a communicator/controller (220) related to controlling the transfer of the wireless power.
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