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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because:
the preamble just recites “transmitter”. The claim should recite that it is a “wireless power transmitter”.
the circuit limitation is incorrect. The claim indicates that the circuit completes two actions: 1) recover first/second signals; and 2) identify an impedance change. The order is backwards – the circuit uses the sensed current to identify an impedance change and then correlates that change to one of two signals.
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 2, 5-7 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 2, 5-7 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” (claim 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 2 recites the current sensor is arranged to sense current “in a high-side p-channel [MOSFET] of the driver”. But the claim does not clearly set forth that the driver comprises the p-channel MOSFET.
Claim 5 recites the configuration to receive a signal “from a voltage-controlled oscillator”. The claim does not clearly set forth that the transmitter comprises this oscillator.
Claim 6 does not clearly set forth that the driver comprises an output transistor.
Claim 7, “corresponds to an output p-channel power transistor” is indefinite. The claim does not clearly set forth that the driver comprises this component.
Claim 11 recites the passive language that the driver outputs “are coupled to a transmitter coil”. The claim does not clearly set forth that the transmitter comprises this coil. Passive language (are [verb]) is descriptive of things that happen to the object; it should be avoided in the claims.
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.
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, 11-13, 15 and 20 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 transmitter (fig 2; par 17-46) comprising:
a driver (216) arranged to provide a drive current to transmit power wirelessly to a receiver (unclaimed – see item 230);
a current sensor (220) to sense current in the driver (claim 2 recites that sensing driver current can be accomplished through sensing coil current);
a circuit (218) to recover a first signal from the receiver that represents an over-power signal of the receiver and a second signal from the receiver that represents an under-power signal of the receiver (par 39-43 – see also par 26-36 for how the receiver modulates the first/second signals for demodulation by the transmitter) and to identify an impedance change in the receiver (through the value of current sensed; par 39); and
a power modulator (processor; see par 18) to adjust the transmitted power based on the first signal from the current sensor and to adjust the transmitted power based the second signal from the current sensor (par 42-43).
Pigott discloses a wireless power transmitter that interacts with a receiver. The transmitter senses current through its driver to identify and demodulate receiver-initiated load modulation. The Pigott transmitter extracts one of two signals (load is modulated, load is not modulated) to know if the receiver needs more/less power. Pigott’s transmitter then reacts accordingly (by modulating its output power).
With respect to claim 2, Pigott discloses the current sensor is arranged to sense a current in a high-side p-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor transistor of the driver, a current in a low-side n-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor transistor of the driver, or a coil current (see fig 2).
With respect to claim 3, Pigott discloses the power modulator is arranged to adjust its transmitted power:
by skipping pulses to reduce the transmitted power or operating continuously to transmit full power,
by increasing a duty cycle to increase the transmitted power or reducing the duty cycle to reduce the transmitted power (par 45), or
by increasing a supply voltage to increase the transmitted power or reducing the supply voltage to reduce the transmitted power (par 45).
With respect to claim 11, Pigott discloses outputs of the driver are coupled to a transmitter coil (212) and to provide a circuit to recover a first signal from the receiver (the Pigott driver outputs “provide” the circuit that is downstream – the coil, sensor, demodulated – that are necessary to recover/identify the first signal).
With respect to claim 12, Pigott discloses the first signal and the second signal are load-shift-keying signals (par 27, 31-32).
With respect to claim 13, Pigott discloses the transmitter has open inputs to couple to a transmitter coil (unclaimed – see item 212) to recover the first signal and the second signal from the receiver without use of a sensing coil (the only coil in the transmitter is the transmission coil 210 – sensor 220 is not a sensing coil).
With respect to claims 15 and 20, Pigott discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, as discussed above in the art rejections of claim 1. No modifications are required to be made to the transmitter to place it on skin. The receiver isn’t claim and, therefore, its location does not affect the structure of the transmitter.
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 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigott in view of Hobbs (US 6,510,737).
With respect to claim 4, Pigott discloses the power modulator includes the ability to extract the first and second signal from a sensed voltage from the current sensor, but does not expressly disclose two comparators and a multiplexer. Hobbs discloses a demodulator circuit (fig 2; col. 3-4) that includes:
a first comparator (41) to compare a sensed voltage (taken from 32, 34 and 38) to a high reference transmission voltage (+REF);
a second comparator (42) to compare the sensed voltage to a low reference transmission voltage (-REF); and
a multiplexer (53) connected to an output of the first comparator and an output of the second comparator, the multiplexer to provide a control signal to adjust the transmitted power (col. 4, lines 31-41).
Hobbs discloses two different driving signals are provided to an oscillator. A MUX selects which driving signal to apply as a function of the output of window comparator (41, 42).
Pigott and Hobbs are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely demodulators. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Pigott demodulator to include the window comparator and MUX, as taught by Hobbs. The motivation for doing so would have been to: a) distinguish between the two receiver signals (load modulation, no load modulation); or b) use fixed oscillators instead of requiring a variable one.
For (a), Pigott discloses the encodes the received power level into one of two signal (too high = modulation on; too low = modulation off; see par 32). Each signal creates an effect in the transmitter that is detectable through the transmitter coil current. It is possible to detect the difference between these two signal with one threshold (in the middle of the expected power values). But it is also entirely possible to use two threshold (high, low) to ensure that the demodulator isn’t reading noise at the midpoint.
For (b), Pigott discloses that the feedback signals cause the driver to increase or decrease the transmission frequency (par 45). Hobbs modifies this by including two distinct frequency types (square drive, sine drive) and uses a MUX, toggled by the output of the window comparator, to select one or the other. Thus, instead of a variable oscillator, the combination uses two fixed oscillators that are selected with a MUX. This is the same strategy as illustrated in the Applicants’ figure 5 (window comparators 547-1, 547-2, two oscillation signals (“full-power” and “low-power” at the top left), and MUX (560).
With respect to claim 5, Hobbs discloses the power modulator is connected to receive a signal source from a voltage-controlled oscillator (12) and a control signal generated from a sensed voltage from the current sensor (through the window comparator 41/42 and MUX 53, as discussed above), directing operation of a lower-power mode or a higher-power mode based on the sensed voltage (MUX 53 selects one of two shaped waves to drive the oscillator 12).
In the combination the MUX (53) output would be applied to the Pigott driver (216). Thus, the combination teaches the power modulated is connected to the (Pigott) driver to provide a clock to the driver (one of the two Hobbs clocks), directing operation of the driver to a lower-power mode or a higher-power mode based on the sensed voltage (because the Pigott receiver indicated its power level is too high or too low).
The references are analogous, as discussed above in item (b).
With respect to claim 16, Pigott and Hobbs combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 4.
With respect to claim 17, Pigott, modified by Hobbs, discloses:
converting the sensed current to a voltage (par 40; see below),
in response to the sensed voltage exceeding the (Hobbs) upper threshold reducing the transmitted power (par 42),
in response to a subsequent sensed voltage declining below the (Hobbs) lower threshold increasing the transmitted power (par 42).
Pigott discloses the comparison of load impedance or load current (par 40). Through Ohm’s Law, V=IR, Pigott already knows two parts of the equation. Solving for the third, voltage, would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, through Ohm’s Law, the sensed voltage is directly proportional to the sensed current and the skilled artisan would have considered substituting one for the other.
Claims 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigott in view of Hobbs and Yu (US 10,439,597).
With respect to claim 6, Hobbs discloses selecting between two distinct driving signals and Pigott disclose that the difference in the driving signals can be frequency, duty cycle or voltage (par 45). The combination does not expressly disclose skipping pulses. Yu discloses a voltage-feedback controlled inverter (fig 3; col. 7-8) that comprises a power modulator (330) to provide pulses to a driver (332) such that an output transistor (302) of the driver turns on once every three consecutive cycles (col. 7-8, bridging paragraph).
The combination and Yu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely inverter output power level control. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination to include pulse skipping, as taught by Yu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use an equivalent strategy to control output power. Yu discloses that pulse skipping, PWM and frequency control are all known strategies to control inverter output voltage (col. 7, lines 62-66) and does not disclose any hardships in interchanging them.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Pigott, Hobbs and Yu teaches the (Pigott) lower-power mode corresponds to an (Yu, item 302) output p-channel power transistor of the driver only turning on some switching cycles of the driver (Yu, col. 7-8, bridging paragraph), operating with reduced duty cycle (Pigott, par 45), or operating with lower supply voltage (Pigott par 45). The references are analogous, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Yu discloses the driver includes a class D driver (fig 3, 302, 304, 318 and 322 form a class D amplifier – therefore the driver 332 for this amplifier is a “class D driver”). The references are analogous, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Pigott, Hobbs and Yu combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 6.
Claims 10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pigott in view of White (US 2015/0280448).
With respect to claim 10, Pigott discloses the transmitter of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a peaking current source. White discloses a wireless power transmitter that includes the ability to demodulate data by sensing the current through its amplifier (see fig 4). White further discloses that the operating voltage (Vds) provides the necessary bias current to operate this demodulation functionality. Vds, as the operating voltage, would also be provided to operate the other components (detectors, memory, controller, etc.). Since White discloses a bias current that is provided “to components” of the transmitter, it satisfies the only defining characteristic of the “peaking current source”.
Neither the claim nor the specification recite what this source is or how it is actually connected to the transmitter. “to provide bias current” is a statement of intended use – it does not actually describe any electrical connection between the source and the component(s). Thus, none are required to be cited in the prior art. White discloses the general ability to include a bias current in a transmitter and, therefore, claim 10 is obvious over the prior art.
Pigott and White are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with impedance modulation communication demodulators. 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 to include the peaking current source, as taught by White. The motivation for doing so would have been “to provide” bias current to operate the components of the transmitter.
With respect to claim 14, White discloses the transmitter is structured in a single integrated circuit (par 40, last sentence) operable outside skin of a subject. The receiver isn’t claimed, so it is irrelevant to the art reject that it is implanted below the skin of the subject.
With respect to claim 19, White teaches that the power modulator uses a clock signal from a voltage-controlled oscillator (212).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the transmitter of claim 8 further comprising the specific interconnection of the two drivers, as recite din claim 9.
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