DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 9/20/2024.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldhaher (US 2021/0083634) in view of Haynie et al. (US Patent 12278474). Regarding claim 1, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) a transmitter for transferring power to a receiver of a wireless power transfer system (see fig. 3), the transmitter comprising a transmitter element (312) and an inverter (310) comprising a switched mode zero-voltage switching (ZVS) amplifier (see fig. 5) comprising: a pair of circuits (502/512/514 and (518/520/522) comprising: at least a transistor (512 and 520) and at least a capacitor (514 and 522) arranged in parallel (see parallel connection); and at least an inductor (502 and 518) arranged in series with the transistor and capacitor (see series connection); an inductor (see fig. 3 312) electrically connected to the pair of circuits (see connection of 312 to 310), the inductor operating as the transmitter element of the transmitter to transfer power to a receiver of a wireless power transfer system via magnetic field coupling (operation of 312 transmitting). Aldhaher does not disclose that the inductor is a ZVS inductor. Haynie et al. discloses (see fig. 1) that an inductor (30) is a ZVS inductor (30 is a ZVS inductor). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter of Aldhaher to include the features of Haynie et al. because it’s used as a means to mitigate shoot-through events thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 2, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) that the inverter comprises a combined direct current / direct current (DC/DC) converter and inverter (302) for converting an input DC signal to a desired level and inverting a DC signal to alternating current (operation of elements in 302). Regarding claim 7, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) the inductors are adapted to store and release energy for DC/DC conversion, and the inductors are adapted to operate as a choke for the inverter (operation of inductors in the pair of circuits in fig.5) Regarding claim 8, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) that the inductors are adapted to provide a constant DC current (operation of inductors in the pair of circuits in fig.5). Regarding claim 9, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) that the combined DC/DC converter and inverter is a class E inverter (see paragraph 0027). Regarding claim 10, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) that the combined DC/DC converter and inverter is load-independent (see paragraph 0027). Regarding claim 11, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. 3 and 5) a method of transferring power from a transmitter to a receiver of a wireless power transfer system (see fig. 3), the transmitter comprising a transmitter element (312) and an inverter (310) comprising a switched mode zero-voltage switching (ZVS) amplifier (see fig. 5) comprising: a pair of circuits (502/512/514 and (518/520/522) comprising: at least a transistor (512 and 520) and at least a capacitor (514 and 522) arranged in parallel (see parallel connection); and at least an inductor (502 and 518) arranged in series with the transistor and capacitor (see series connection); an inductor (see fig. 3 312) electrically connected to the pair of circuits (see connection of 312 to 310), the inductor operating as the transmitter element of the transmitter to transfer power to a receiver of a wireless power transfer system via magnetic field coupling (operation of 312 transmitting), the method comprising: generating a field via the transmitter element (operation of 312 with 314) to transfer power to a receiver element of a receiver of a wireless power transfer system (operation of 312 with 314). Aldhaher does not disclose that the inductor is a ZVS inductor. Haynie et al. discloses (see fig. 1) that an inductor (30) is a ZVS inductor (30 is a ZVS inductor). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Aldhaher to include the method of Haynie et al. because it’s used as a means to mitigate shoot-through events thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldhaher (US 2021/0083634) in view of Luo et al. (US Patent 12191677). Regarding claim 12, Aldhaher discloses (see fig. ) a receiver (314) for extracting power from a field generated by a transmitter (312) of a wireless power transfer system (operation of 314), the receiver comprising a receiver element (314) electrically connected to a rectifier (316). Aldhaher does not disclose a rectifier comprising a capacitor for converting a voltage signal at the receiver element to a current signal, the capacitor electrically connected in parallel to the receiver element. Luo et al. discloses (see fig. 1) a rectifier (Cd/112) comprising a capacitor (Cd) for converting a voltage signal at a receiver element (L2) to a current signal (operation of Cd), the capacitor electrically connected in parallel to the receiver element (Cd parallel connection with L2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter of Aldhaher to include the features of Luo et al. because it’s used as means to reduce unwanted operations due to potential transient events, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Aldhaher does not disclose that the voltage signal and the current signal are constant. Luo et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the voltage signal and the current signal being constant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the voltage signal and the current signal be constant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter of Aldhaher to include the features of Luo et al having the voltage signal and the current signal be constant because it provides for a reduction in operational variances, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 20, Aldhaher discloses the claimed invention except for the rectifier being a Class E rectifier or a push-pull rectifier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rectifier be a Class E rectifier or a push-pull rectifier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter of Aldhaher to include the features having the rectifier be a Class E rectifier or a push-pull rectifier because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in component variance, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldhaher (US 2021/0083634) in view of Luo et al. (US Patent 12191677) and Klaren (US Patent 10951023). Regarding claim 15, Aldhaher does not disclose that the receiver comprises an impedance transformation circuit comprising the capacitor. Klaren discloses (see fig. 3 and 4) that a receiver (300) comprises an impedance transformation circuit (302) comprising a capacitor (Ct). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter of Aldhaher to include the features of Klaren because it’s used as means to regulate impedance values to mitigate potential transient events, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 16, Aldhaher does not disclose that the impedance transformation circuit has a T-network topology. Klaren discloses the claimed invention except for the impedance transformation circuit having a T-network topology. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the impedance transformation circuit comprise a T-network topology, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter of Aldhaher to include the features of Klaren having the impedance transformation circuit comprise a T-network topology because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in component variance, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Saha et al. (US Patent 10804807) discloses a low rms current zero voltage switching assisting circuit. Markhi et al. (US Patent 10439502) discloses a resonant rectifier circuit with capacitor sensing. Song et al. (US 2024/0146119) discloses an adaptive control amplitude of ask communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights