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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The claims are directed to a wireless power receiver (not “wireless power transfer systems”) with voltage detection and the generation of feedback information. The “voltage regulation” happens in the unclaimed transmitter.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the preamble recites just “receiver”. The claim should recite that it is a “wireless power receiver”.
Claim 5 is objected to because:
it recites “the receiver is arranged to generate the first signal” and the second signal. Claim 1, however, already provides the antecedent basis for the “signal generator” being used to generate the first/second signals. The dependent claim should refer to the narrow component that creates the signal, not generally to the entire receiver.
the limitation of “generate the first signal by substantially changing the input impedance” is incorrect (same for the second signal). The first/second signals are what is output to the circuit to cause it to then change the input impedance of the receiver. The first/second signals are not the result of a changed receive impedance. The cause/effect in claim 5 is backwards.
Claim 6 is objected to because “implemented as” should be “comprising” or another conventional transitional phrase. MPEP §2111.03.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9 and 11 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.
These claims are indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the listed components or not. Claims 7, 9 and 11 do not use transitional phrases and instead appear descriptive of structure. Descriptive language does not particularly point out or distinctly claim the structure. Different readers would draw different conclusions as to the scope of the claims.
Throughout the claims, the Applicants have indicated that new structure is introduced with transitional phrase like “comprising” (claim 1) or “includes” (claims 2, 4). These rejected claims do not contain a similar introductions for their structural language and, therefore, it must be assumed that it is to be treated differently (i.e. not claimed). But its presence in the claim suggests that it is important and, therefore, is claimed. The public would draw different interpretations of the scope of the claim – this makes the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites that two of the limitations from claim 1 (local voltage regulator, signal generator) “are structure as” something else. The claim does not distinctly point out what a “linear current sink” is – namely what narrowing structural limitations are present in the linear current sink that are not already present in the broader language of claim 1. For the purpose of the art rejection, the linear current sink will be interpreted as descriptive of how the local voltage regulator and signal generator operate together.
Claim 7 recites “coupled to a load-shift-keying signal generator”. This language is indefinite because it is descriptive of something coupled to the linear current sink – the claim does not clearly point out if the LSK signal generator is actually being claimed or not. For the purpose of the art rejection, the LSK signal generator will be interpreted as descriptive (not claimed) of a feature that is coupled to the regulator and generator.
Claim 9 recites “the transistor is coupled in parallel to a rectifier” and that the rectifier “has outputs to provide the output voltage to a load”. It is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the parallel rectifier or load.
Claim 11 recites “via a driver”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the driver is being claimed or not. “via a driver” is descriptive language.
For all claims that introduce new or narrowing structure, the Applicants should consider language that starts with a proper introduction (“the receiver further comprising”) and then shift to descriptions of where it is and how it is connected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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 18 describes how a signal “depends” on an electrical property of the receiver. There are no narrowing structural or functional limitations in claim 18. The claim appears to simply describe how external events may impact the signaling.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pigott (US 2014/0266019).
With respect to claim 1, Pigott discloses a receiver (fig 2, 4; par 17-46, 51-55) comprising:
a local voltage regulator (252) to regulate an output voltage of the receiver with respect to an upper threshold voltage and a lower threshold voltage;
a signal generator (520; par 26-27, 30-31, 33-35, 52-54) to generate a first signal in response to the output voltage reaching the upper threshold voltage and a second signal in response to the output voltage reducing to the lower threshold voltage; and
a circuit (260; par 28-29, 31, 36) to change an input impedance of the receiver and to control reception of power received wirelessly from a transmitter in response to the first signal or the second signal (the transmitter isn’t claim; Pigott disclose this transmitter response in par 26 and 39).
Pigott discloses a wireless power receiver that compares its rectified DC voltage to two thresholds (the upper and lower thresholds are provided by the hysteresis in par 33 – see also the two different comparison made in figure 4, steps 406 and 412; par 52-54). The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not require two distinct comparators (claim 2). The language of claim 1 only broadly refers to the local regulator as “with respect to” two thresholds.
When the Pigott voltage is above the upper threshold, the impedance circuit is toggled/modulated. When the Pigott voltage is below the lower threshold, the impedance circuit is not toggled/modulated. These two controls (toggle, not toggled) create two different effects that are sensed by the (unclaimed) transmitter to let it know if it should lower or raise its transmitted voltage.
The claim is directed to the receiver and the scope of the claim ends at the control of its circuit and the corresponding effect on the receiver input impedance. The “to control reception of power” language at the end of the claim is directed to how the unclaimed transmitter would respond to the impedance change – it is not structurally or functionally part of the receiver.
With respect to claim 2, Pigott discloses the local voltage regulator includes:
a first comparison circuit (par 52) to compare a comparison voltage to the upper threshold voltage, with the comparison voltage representing the output voltage; and
a second comparison circuit (par 54) to compare the comparison voltage to the lower threshold voltage.
Pigott’s two distinct flowchart comparisons is evidence that the reference includes two different comparison circuits (to be able to make the two comparisons at different times).
With respect to claim 3, Pigott discloses the first comparison circuit and the second comparison circuit are coupled to receive a fraction of the output voltage as an input signal to the first comparison circuit and to the second comparison circuit (due to the inherent resistance in the line from 282 to the comparators within 248). The claim only broadly recites “coupled to receive a fraction” and does not explicitly require that the receiver comprises a voltage divider to create the fraction.
With respect to claim 5, Pigott discloses the receiver is arranged to generate the first signal by substantially changing the input impedance of the receiver (par 27), and to generate the second signal by substantially changing the input impedance of the receiver (par 27), the first signal being different from the second signal (par 27 – the first signal results in the impedance being toggled, the second signal results in the impedance being a fixed value).
With respect to claim 7, Pigott discloses the local voltage regulator and the signal generator are structured as a linear current sink (descriptive – not further limiting) coupled to a load-shift-keying signal generator (descriptive – not claimed).
Pigott discloses the local voltage regulator and signal generator of claim 1. There are no additional structural limitations in claim 7 to narrowly define what these limitations are or what else needs to be done to them to make them a “linear current sink”. As Pigott discloses the structure of each individual item, the reference is interpreted as disclosing that the two items combine to make the linear current sink.
Further, the presence/absence of the (unclaimed) linear current sink and LSK generator does not affect the structure of the local voltage regulator or signal generator.
With respect to claim 8, Pigott discloses the circuit to change the input impedance includes a transistor (264) coupled between two inputs of the receiver.
With respect to claim 9, Pigott discloses the transistor is coupled in parallel to a rectifier (not distinctly claimed; see item 234) and the rectifier has outputs to provide the output voltage to a load (not claimed; see item 246) of the receiver.
With respect to claim 10, Pigott discloses the transistor is a PMOS transistor (par 36) sized to provide an impedance to enhance the first and second signals (Pigott successfully operates the transistor to provide convert the first/second signals into two “enhanced” impedance levels that can be detected by the transmitter).
Paragraph 36 discloses that a HIGH signal turns the transistor on and a LOW signal turns it off. This is the characteristic of a PMOS transistor (i.e. normally off). While the schematic of figure 2 suggests it is an NMOS transistor, the description of its on/off functionality clearly points to a PMOS.
With respect to claims 15 and 19, Pigott discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1 and 5, respectively.
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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigott in view of Utsunomiya (US 2014/0153068).
With respect to claim 4, Pigott discloses the receiver of claim 2 and that the first comparison circuit includes an error amplifier (252), but does not expressly disclose its output is coupled to transistors. Utsunomiya discloses a voltage feedback circuit (fig 4; par 27-34) comprising a local voltage regulator (131, 132, 110, 135) to regulate an output voltage of the receiver with respect to a threshold voltage;
wherein the local voltage regulator includes a comparison circuit (110, 135) to compare a comparison voltage (output from 131, 132) representing the output voltage with the threshold voltage;
wherein the first comparison circuit includes an error amplifier (110) having an output coupled to transistors (within 135) to operationally sense a current, corresponding to the output voltage (the current through 135 “corresponds” to the voltage drop between VDD and ground), with respect to a regulating current.
Pigott and Utsunomiya are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely voltage feedback circuits. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Pigott’s local voltage regulator to have its comparator/error-amplifier coupled to “transistors”. The motivation for doing so would have been to convert the voltage signal into a current signal to drive the impedance modulation circuitry transistor.
With respect to claim 11, the references combine to teach the gate of the (Pigott) transistor is coupled to the signal generator via a driver (Utsunomiya 135). The references are analogous, as discussed above.
Claims 6, 11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigott in view of Imamura (US 2024/0235542).
With respect to claim 6, Pigott discloses the receiver of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose how the signal generator creates the pulse signal (to toggle the circuit). Imamura discloses a transistor driving circuit (fig 1, 5-6; item 100) that comprises a signal generator (110) that is implemented as a rising or falling edge detector (120) and a pulse generator (140) for load-shift-keying signal generation.
Imamura discloses converting a HIGH/LOW signal into a pulsed signal (see fig 6, pulse 210). Pigott and Imamura are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely transistors with driving circuits to create a pulse pattern. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Pigott and Imamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps missing in the Pigott disclosure. Pigott discloses the need for pulsing its impedance modulation transistor, but does not expressly disclose the circuitry necessary to do so. Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art, including Imamura, to understand how to successfully create a pulse pattern from a single HIGH signal.
With respect to claim 11, the references combine to teach the gate of the (Pigott) transistor is coupled to the signal generator via a driver (Imamura item 100 or just 150). The references are analogous, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, Pigott and Imamura combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 6 and 8. Both of Pigott’s impedance control signals would be modified to have “pulse” shapes, as taught by Imamura. So long as the transmitter can distinguish between the two signals, adding a pulse to Pigott’s LOW signal is not prohibitive.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of references teaches that the Pigott HIGH signal causes the Imamura first pulse to drive the Pigott transistor to create a first load-shift-keying signal for wireless reception by the transmitter and the LOW signal causes the second pulse to drive the transistor to create a second load-shift-keying signal for wireless reception by the transmitter (Pigott, par 26, 39). Pigott paragraph 27 discloses the need to create two distinct signals. Modifying Pigott by Imamura (to have pulses) would keep the ability for the (unclaimed) transmitter to distinguish between the two signals.
With respect to claim 16, the combination teaches implementing a rising or falling edge detector and a pulse generator, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, Pigott discloses the need to distinguish between the two modulation signals and Imamura teaches adding a pulse to the modulation signal. 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 to have different pulse widths. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the transmitter to distinguish between the two signals.
With respect to claim 18, the combination obviously teaches the length of the first/second pulses depends on a coupling coefficient of the receiver with respect to a receiver coil coupled inputs to the receiver. If the Applicants’ pulse width “depends” on a passive effect, then it is permissible to interpret the prior art as having the same reaction.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigott in view of Lin (US 2020/0287420).
Pigott discloses the receiver of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, but does not expressly disclose it is integrated in a chip or capable of being implanted.
Regarding the implantation, the claim only broadly recites “capable” without describing any structure to make it successful. In other words, there is no indication that the “capability” must be achieved without harm to the subject (it could be a deceased animal). An integrated circuit would require being sealed and protected from the body in which it is being implanted – no such language appears in the claim.
Lin discloses that it is known to structure a receiver in an integrated circuit chip capable of being implanted under skin of a subject (par 26-27). Pigott and Lin are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power receivers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to miniaturize the Pigott receiver (to be on an IC) and make it “capable” of implantation. The motivation for doing so would have been to satisfy the needs of a user – repurposing the Pigott receiver for a different use (powering a subcutaneous sensor instead of a portable electronic device). Miniaturization is an obvious modification (MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) – the general trend in electrical engineering is making circuits smaller) and subcutaneous wireless power transmission is known in the art. Applying a known technology (Pigott) to a new use (power transmission through skin) would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Neither modification (making it smaller, making it “capable” of implantation) affects the electrical structure or functionality of the receiver.
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