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 .
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for priority does not appear to be correct. The claims pending in this application were not recite in the parent application and were not part of the restriction requirement (5/18/21).
This application appears to be a continuation.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 3 (page 2), 31 (page 8) and 44 (page 14) have page breaks that put only a few words on an entire page.
Paragraphs 4, 7, 16, 24, 26-27 and 40 include a string of words with no spaces.
Appropriate correction is required. The Applicant should review the entire specification for formatting (not just the claims identified above).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because it recites:
It is missing a space between “furthercomprising” in the preamble.
that the wireless charging receiver is “coupled to the pedal board”. This does not appear to be correct, as the receiver is coupled to the effects pedal. There is a wireless coupling between the transmitter and receiver, but the claim appears to suggest physically mounting the receiver to the pedal board. Namely, claim 1 already uses the phrase “transmitter coupled to the pedal board” to indicate that the transmitter is physically mounted (coupled) to the pedal board. Using the same language for the receiver is incorrect.
That the charging receiving coil “being configured to couple to a musical instrument effects pedal”. This appears to be incorrect, as the receiver is actually coupled to the effects pedal (i.e. its load).
Items a and b suggest that the claim incorrectly interchanges the pedal board and the effects pedal. It appears that rewording the claim (to swap locations of the board and pedal) would result in a more correct claim. Namely, the claim should recite “the receiver is coupled to an effects pedal, the receiver is coupled to its associated coil, the coil is then configured to (wirelessly) couple to the (transmitter coil of the) pedal board”. (parenthesis to illustrate additional language that should be added to clarify the claim).
Claim 6 is objected to because it is missing a “to” in the phrase “a capacitor is coupled to at least one …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no written description support in the originally filed application for the limitations of claim 17 that recite “attaching a wireless charging transmitter to a first side of the pedal board” and “affixing the effects pedal on second side of the pedal board, the first side being on an opposite side from the first side…”.
No part of the specification discloses “sides” of the pedal board, that the transmitter and receiver (part of the effects pedal) are on “opposite sides”.
To the contrary, the skilled artisan would have understood that “resonant inductive coupling” (as is recited in claim 17) operates on very small distances, namely the wavelength of the transmitted power divided by 2pi (see Simon US 2013/0175872; par 10). If the transmitter is on the bottom of the pedal board and the receiver is on the top, they would be separated by several inches of “wood, plastic or a lightweight metal like aluminum, that can withstand the stress of a musician pressing a foot on the effects pedals thereon” (Applicant’s specification, par 31 and fig 1 which shows how thick the pedal board is).
The Applicant’s figure 3A shows that the transmitters (301-304) are on the top of the pedal board. This would be the same side on which the effects pedals are placed (see fig 6).
Claims 18-20 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 17.
For the purpose of the art rejections of claim 17, the transmitter and effects pedal will be interpreted as attached/affixed to the same/first side.
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 6-9 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.
Claim 6 is indefinite because of its use of passive voice – “a capacitor is coupled”. This language is descriptive of where a capacitor is coupled and does not clearly set forth if the Applicant is seeking patent protection over the capacitor or not.
For comparison, claims 3-5 all recite “the wireless charging transmitter includes a [structure]”. Claim 6 should include the same type of introduction for the capacitor.
Claims 7-9 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 6.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it recites that the DC power source is coupled to the source and drain of the same one MOSFET. This is incorrect, as the specification (see fig 5) shows that the source is connected to the source of the second MOSFET (514) and the drain of the one/first MOSFET (513).
Claim 9 is similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 8.
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 1-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings (US 2018/0090115) in view of Hwang (US 2017/0229921). Alternatively, the claims are obvious over Hwang in view of Skillings.
With respect to claim 1, Skillings discloses a pedal board system (par 3, 54) comprising:
a pedal board (par 3); and
a wireless charging transmitter coupled to the pedal board (par 54).
Skillings, as discussed during prosecution of the parent application, discloses that it is known to transfer power wirelessly from a pedal board to an effects pedal. Skillings only broadly mentions wireless power and does not expressly disclose the necessary structure.
Hwang discloses a wireless power transfer system (fig 1, 11; par 2-15, 78-83) comprising:
a wireless charging transmitter (10); and
at least one wireless charging transmitting coil (112) coupled to the wireless charging transmitter, the at least one wireless charging transmitting coil being configured to transfer power to an associated wireless charging receiving coil (124).
Skillings and Hwang are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transfer systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure Skillings to have the structure taught by Hwang. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the blanks in the Skillings disclosure. Skillings lack of specificity would lead the skilled artisan to consult the prior art to understand how to construct a wireless power transfer system.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Hwang’s wireless power transfer system to be used in a pedal board, as taught by Skillings. The motivation for doing so would have been to use wireless power in a location that is known to benefit from it.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches:
a wireless charging receiver (Hwang item 12) coupled to the (Skillings) pedal board (sic – the receiver is coupled to the effects pedal), the wireless charging receiver being coupled to the associated wireless charging receiving coil (Hwang 12 is associated with 124), the associated wireless charging receiving coil being configured to couple to a musical instrument effects pedal (the Hwang load 150 is the Skillings effects pedal).
With respect to claim 3, Hwang discloses the wireless charging transmitter includes a transmitter control circuit (any one or more of items 100 or 1120; par 82). The claim only broadly names a control circuit without explaining what it does. First, claim 4 defines the “control circuit” as just being a pair of MOSFETs (i.e. the things that are controlled). Thus, Hwang’s item 100 is a “control circuit”. Second, the Hwang inverter driver (103) provides a driving signal to “control” when the MOSFETs switch. Thus, it qualifies as a “transmitter control circuit”. Third, the Hwang refers to 1120 as a resonance controller.
With respect to claim 4, Hwang discloses the transmitter control circuit includes a power source (104) connected to a pair of MOSFETs (101, 102).
With respect to claim 5, Hwang discloses the at least one wireless charging transmitting coil is coupled to and between each transistor of the pair of MOSFETs (see fig 1, 11).
With respect to claim 6, Hwang discloses a capacitor (111) is coupled at least one wireless charging transmitter coil and to a source of one MOSFET (101) of the pair of MOSFETs.
With respect to claim 7, Hwang discloses the power source is a DC power source (104).
With respect to claim 8, Hwang discloses the DC power source is connected to a drain of one MOSFET (101) and wherein the DC power source is connected to the source of the one (sic – the second) MOSFET (102).
With respect to claim 9, Hwang discloses the pair of MOSFETS are configured to form (they actually form) a half bridge inverter as controlled by the transmitter control circuit (see fig 1, 11).
The Applicant should note that the phrase “configured to” is a structural limitation. It describes the structure by functionality it can achieve without further modifies. The two MOSFETs that are “configured to form a half-bridge” is descriptive of the MOSFETs – it does not actually create the half-bridge.
Two MOSFETs can create a half bridge by actually being joined in series between a DC source and ground. In this connection, the structure of the MOSFETs remains unchained – their “configuration” isn’t affected.
If the Applicant intends to claim the actual half-bridge inverter, they may consider using more direct language, like “wherein the MOSFETs are connected to form a half bridge inverter”.
With respect to claim 10, Hwang discloses the wireless charging receiver includes a receiver control circuit (140).
With respect to claim 11, Hwang discloses a full wave rectifier (130) and filter (Crect) coupled to the receiver control circuit (140).
With respect to claim 12, Hwang discloses the full wave rectifier and filter are configured to receive an AC power signal from the associated wireless charging receiving coil (because they are electrically connected). As noted above, “configured to receive” does not actually connect the rectifier to the receiver coil. A circuit is structurally configured to receive power because it has an electrical input.
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches the (Hwang) full wave rectifier and filter are configured to transmit a DC power signal to an effects pedal (Skillings par 3).
The Examiner notes that the claim broadly recites what the rectifier/filter is “configured to” transmit DC power to. The claim is limited to the structure of the receiver to have a DC output. The effects pedal is not claimed. The name of an intended load does not change the electrical structure of the receiver’s DC output.
With respect to claim 14, Hwang discloses a power controller (any of 100, 103 and/or 1120; see art rejection of claim 3) coupled to the pedal board.
With respect to claim 17, Skillings and Hwang (in both directions) combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the method for using a pedal board, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. The references are analogous, as discussed above.
In the combination, the Hwang transmitter would be attached to the Skillings pedal board and the Hwang receiver would be attached to the Skillings effects pedal. The transmitter would then wirelessly power the effects pedal.
With respect to claim 19, Skillings discloses a plurality of effects pedals to the second (sic – “first”) side of the pedal board (par 3) and wirelessly powering the plurality of effects pedals (par 54).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings in view of Hwang and Nelson (US 10,810,985). Alternatively, the claims are obvious over Hwang in view of Skillings and Nelson.
With respect to claim 14, as an alternative rejection, Skillings and Hwang do not expressly disclose a power controller coupled to the pedal board (because claim 15 defines the power controller as including a potentiometer). Nelson discloses that it was known, prior to the Applicant’s filing date, to configure a potentiometer (i.e. a power controller) in a music pedal board (fig 4, item 32; abstract, col. 3-4, bridging paragraph).
Skillings and Nelson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely music pedal boards. 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 Skillings board to include a power controller, as taught by Nelson. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to control the volume of their instrument.
With respect to claim 20, Nelson discloses connecting effects pedals from the plurality of effects pedals using a signal chain (see fig 2, chain 48 made with cables 58; col. 3, lines 33-53).
Skillings and Nelson are analogous, as discussed above. 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 Skillings pedals to be in a signal chain, as taught by Nelson. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize a plurality of effects, as desired by the user.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skillings in view of Hwang, Nelson and Souppa (US 2012/0186416). Alternatively, the claims are obvious over Hwang in view of Skillings, Nelson and Souppa.
With respect to claim 15, Nelson discloses a potentiometer, but does not expressly disclose a membrane potentiometer. Souppa discloses a music control device that includes a membrane potentiometer (par 15).
Nelson and Souppa are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely potentiometers. 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 Nelson potentiometer to have a membrane. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known type of potentiometer for the same purpose (to control music volume).
The combination’s potentiometer has an electrical output and is therefore “configured to contact an effects pedal”. It is unclear what is meant by this language, as the potentiometer is inside the pedal board (see claim 14).
The Applicant’s specification also appears to indicate that membrane potentiometer were known (par 39).
With respect to claim 16, Nelson and Souppa both disclose the membrane potentiometer includes a resistive element. A potentiometer, by definition as a “resistive” element.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of the four references teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the method step, and the references are analogous, as discussed above.
Conclusion
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, Rex Barnie 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