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 .
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 6 is 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.
Re Claim 6; Claim recites wherein on the transmission side a modulated periodic synchronization signal S.sub.Tx for time periods following at intervals is generated.
However, the scope of the claim is unclear and for the purpose of examination the claim is read as claim 1.
For the dependent claims 6, 7, 9-15, the claim failed to rectify and also clarify the issue related to the claim it depends upon and is also subjected to the same rejection.
Because of that the dependent claims are also read as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the device according to either claim” AND claims 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15 “recites the method to either claim…”
“Either claim” is ambiguous because: it does not identify which claim is incorporated, it leaves the scope uncertain, it creates two possible interpretations and it prevents a POSITA from determining the metes and bounds of the claim.
Also, The Phrase Creates Prosecution Problems. Using “either claim” causes: Ambiguous prior‑art mapping. The examiner cannot determine: which parent claim’s limitations must be mapped, which limitations are incorporated, and which claim is being further limited.
2. Ambiguous double‑patenting analysis. The examiner cannot determine: which claim is the base claim and whether the dependent claim is patentably distinct.
3. Ambiguous restriction practice. The examiner cannot determine: which invention the dependent claim belongs to.
Claims 3, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “the device according to either claim” AND claims 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15 “recites the method to either claim…”
A dependent claim must refer to a previous claim and must specify a further limitation of the subject matter of the previous claim.
The phrase “either claim” does not refer to a specific previous claim.
It fails to: identify the parent claim, establish a clear dependency and specify which claim is being further limited.
The Phrase Is Not Recognized by USPTO Claim‑Drafting Conventions
The USPTO recognizes only the following dependency formats: “The method of claim 1…” But never: “either claim”, “either of the preceding claims” and “either claim 1 or 2” (without repeating the claim number)
Thus, the phrase is non‑standard and unacceptable.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 5-, 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghovanloo et al. (US 20140140420)
Re Claims 1 and 5, 6; Ghovanloo discloses device for contactless inductive energy transmission,
At least one power electronic unit configured to convert a direct voltage signal on into an alternating current signal (class -d power amplifier driven by non-overlapping clocks, converting DC supply into ac power (See fig. 3, Par 0065-66))
wherein the device comprises a first side (Power side TX 108) and a second side (receiver side 110),
wherein the device comprises an energy transmission coil (L1 101) and a synchronization coil (L2 102), in each case, on the first side and on the second side, (Fig. 1)
wherein the energy transmission coils are in each case configured for inductive transmission and for receiving energy, (Fig. 1, the arrow K12 indicates a bidirectional power transfer between the transmitter side and the receiver side, par 0045-7, 72)
wherein the synchronization coils are in each case configured for inductive transmission and for receiving a synchronization signal, such that the first side and the second side of the device are configured as a transmission side for contactless transmission of energy to be transmitted, and as a receiving side for contactless receiving of transmitted energy;
(data coils L3 and L4 are used for timing/synchronization via pulse delay modulation. (See Par 0045-47, 72))
wherein the synchronization coils transmitting the synchronization signal are dedicated synchronization coils which are separate and distinct from the energy transmission coils, and wherein the synchronization signal is not derived from the power carrier signal (the coils are separate coils and the sync signals are transmitted by the data side of the circuit L3. The coil structure is also distinct based on the number of capacitors coupled to it)
wherein the synchronization signal serves as control signals for actuating the at least one power electronic unit. (Par 0046,72, Fig. 6, recovered clock, timing signals used to control switching and synchronization used to align pulse and power carrier)
Re Claim 2; Ghovanloo discloses wherein the synchronization coils in each case comprise a first side and a second side, wherein the synchronization coils are in each case formed such that a magnetic field generated on the first side has a different magnetic polarity from a magnetic field generated on the second side. (the claim describes a fundamental and inherent characteristic of any electromagnetic coil)
Re Claim 3; Ghovanloo discloses, wherein the at least one power electronic unit comprises a receiving side power electronic unit on a receiving side of the device and a transmission side power electronic unit on a transmission side of the device (Fig. 1),
wherein the synchronization signal serves for synchronization of control signals of the receiving side power electronic with respect to control signals of the power electronic unit. (Par 0040-45)
Re Claim 8; Ghovanloo discloses wherein energy is generated on the first side,
Wherein the at least one power electronic unit comprises a first side power electronic unit on a first side of the device and a second side power electronic unit on a second side of the device
wherein energy is converted into an alternating current signal by the first side power electronic nit (PA) on the first side, wherein an alternating magnetic field is generated on the first side, on the basis of the alternating current signal, by means of the energy transmission coil, wherein the energy transmission coil of the second side receives the alternating magnetic field and, on the basis thereof, generates an alternating voltage signal, wherein the alternating voltage signal is converted into a direct voltage signal by the second power electronic unit (116), on the second side. (Fig. 1, also the claim is analogous to claim 1 and the same rejection is applied)
Re Claim 9, Ghovanloo discloses wherein the synchronization coil of the first side generates an alternating magnetic field on the basis of the synchronization signal STx,wherein the synchronization coil of the second side receives the alternating magnetic field and, on the basis thereof, (Par 0045, 65-67 and also see Fig. 3 Par 0045 discloses the PPG generating timing pulse on the transmitter side
Fig. 3 shows these pulse driving the PA94 which in turns drive the primary coil L1
Par 0065 explans that the PA converts DC into AC and Par 0067 states that the AC produces the AC magnetic fields used for both power and timing)
generates an alternating voltage signal, wherein the alternating voltage signal corresponds to the synchronization signal RTx of the receiving side. (Fig. 1, Par 71, 72 the clock recovery circuit 11 extracts the sync signal from the received AC waveform,)
Re Claim 11; Ghovanloo discloses wherein on the basis of the synchronization signal RTx of the receiving side, (Fig. 6, Par 0071-2, Fig. 6 shoes the clock recovery circuit 118)
an autocorrelation signal is generated by means of an autocorrelation function, (Par 0071-2 par 0071 describes extracting timing info from the received signal using correlation-based detection, Par 0072 explains that the receiver determines timing alignment by comparing the received waveform to expand patterns)
wherein the at least one power electronic unit comprises a receiving side power electronic unit on a receiving side of the device and a transmission side power electronic unit on a transmission side of the device, (Par 0045 describes the pulse pattern generation PPG for generating timing pulses that encodes control information, Fig. 4 shows the timing pulse sequence used for sync and par 0071 explains that the receiver extracts timing by comparing the received waveform to the transmitter timing pattern )
a synchronization timepoint is determined by means of the autocorrelation signal, wherein at the synchronization timepoint control signals of the receiving side power electronic unit of the receiving side are set back, and thus synchronized with the control signals of the transmission side power electronic unit of the transmission side. (Par 0071-2)
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.
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghovanloo in view of Mao et al. (US 2019/0089197)
Re Claim 4; Ghovanloo discloses wherein the power electronic units as an amplifier
Ghovanloo does not disclose are configured as full-bridge converters having four switches.
However, Mao discloses a power amplifier 207 which converts the dc voltage 206 to a high-frequency ac waveform, usually at a fixed duty cycle (typically 50% in a half-bridge or full-bridge topology) (Par 0042)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the invention to have an amplifier which is has or full-bridge topology in order to resonate the coil for power to be transmitted.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghovanloo in view of Mao et al. (US 2019/0089197)
Re Claims 7, 11 and 12; Ghovanloo disclosure has been discussed above.
Ghovanloo does not disclose the mathematics equation provided for the claims.
However, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used the equation shown since the formular is the standard discrete autocorrelation function used in digital communication.
Re Claim 13-15; Ghovanloo discloses wherein the method comprises a definition of an end threshold value,
Ghovanloo does not disclose wherein the synchronization timepoint is identified when the autocorrelation signal falls below the end threshold value.
wherein the method comprises a definition of a starting threshold value and a minimum time, (par 0071-3)
wherein the synchronization timepoint is identified when the autocorrelation signal exceeds the starting threshold value and falls below the end threshold value for at least the minimum time and wherein the starting threshold value, the minimum time and the end threshold value are defined on the basis of the autocorrelation signal of a first time period.
However, a person of ordinary skilled would immediately understand that the system in Ghovanloo uses threshold values to determine when the correlation output is high enough to indicate alignment and when it falls below a threshold to indicate the end of a detection window. Thus, obvious in view of Ghovanloo
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant Argument: “Synchronization signal not derived from the power carrier”
Applicant amended Claim 1 to require: “wherein the synchronization signal is not derived from the power carrier signal.”
Applicant argues that Ghovanloo teaches the opposite because it uses a clock recovery circuit to extract timing from the power carrier.
Examiner Response
The Office acknowledges that Ghovanloo includes a clock recovery circuit. However, the applicant’s argument focuses too narrowly on one embodiment and overlooks the broader teachings of the reference.
Here is the key point:
Ghovanloo teaches multiple synchronization mechanisms, not only power‑carrier‑derived timing. Specifically: Ghovanloo uses data coils L3/L4 to transmit timing‑encoded pulses (pulse‑delay modulation [converting the dc-ac]). These pulses are independent of the power carrier and are used to synchronize the receiver’s internal logic.
This is described in the reference where the data link provides timing information, not merely payload data.
So even if one embodiment extracts timing from the power carrier, another embodiment uses timing transmitted via the data coils, which is not derived from the power carrier.
2. Applicant Argument: “Dedicated synchronization coils separate from energy coils”
Applicant argues that L3/L4 in Ghovanloo are “data coils,” not “dedicated synchronization coils,” and therefore cannot satisfy the claim.
Examiner Response
The Office appreciates the distinction the applicant is trying to draw, but the argument is not persuasive.
A coil’s “dedication” is a matter of intended use, not structure.
Ghovanloo discloses: Power coils (L1/L2), Separate coils (L3/L4) used for timing and data
The applicant’s claim does not require:
• a special geometry,
• a special winding pattern,
• or any structural feature that distinguishes a “synchronization coil” from a “data coil.”
The claim only requires: “synchronization coils… separate and distinct from the energy transmission coils.” Ghovanloo plainly teaches separate coils that transmit timing information.
A POSITA would understand that a coil transmitting timing pulses is, functionally, a synchronization coil, regardless of whether it also carries data.
3. Applicant Argument: “Ghovanloo is unidirectional; the claim requires bidirectional energy transmission.”
Applicant argues that: IMDs receive power but do not transmit power back., Ghovanloo’s receiver is passive and therefore, Ghovanloo cannot teach bidirectional energy transmission.
Examiner Response
The Office understands the applicant’s interpretation, but the argument does not align with how the claim is written.
The claim does not require actual bidirectional power flow.
It only requires:
a power electronic unit on each side, coils on each side configured to transmit and receive energy. This is a capability requirement, not a requirement that both sides actively transmit power in normal operation.
Ghovanloo teaches the required structure Both sides have coils capable of transmitting and receiving electromagnetic energy, Both sides have power electronics (PA on TX side, rectifier and control circuitry on RX side). The system is described as passively bidirectional in coil behavior.
Even if the implant does not normally transmit power, the coils and electronics are capable of receiving and transmitting electromagnetic energy.
4. Applicant Argument: “Mao cannot be combined with Ghovanloo; it would fundamentally change the system.”
Applicant argues that adding a full‑bridge converter to Ghovanloo’s receiver would require: gate drivers, control logic, synchronization, and additional power supplies.
Applicant concludes that this is too drastic a modification.
Examiner Response
The Office appreciates the applicant’s concern, but the argument is not persuasive under KSR.
1. Complexity does not make a modification non‑obvious. Engineering improvements often increase complexity. The legal question is whether the modification is:
• predictable,
• motivated,
• and within the skill of the art.
2. Full‑bridge converters are a well‑known improvement They are used for:
higher efficiency, bidirectional power flow, improved waveform control.
3. Wireless power systems routinely evolve from passive to active receivers
A POSITA would recognize that replacing a passive rectifier with an active full‑bridge is a routine upgrade when: bidirectional power is desired, or finer control is needed.
4. No teaching away
Ghovanloo does not discourage active receivers; it simply presents a passive one for its application.Thus, the combination remains proper.
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (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 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
02/18/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836