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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,136,965 in view of Martchovsky (US 2019/0052117 A1).
Instant claim 1 differs from reference claim 1 only in further reciting: "wherein a message related to the data stream is divided into packets to allow a receiving timing of a control error (CE) data packet."
Martchovsky supplies this difference. Martchovsky is directed to communication between a wireless power transmitter and a wireless power receiver during the Qi/WPC power transfer phase. Martchovsky teaches that during the power transfer phase the receiver periodically transmits a control error packet that instructs the transmitter to increase or decrease transmitted power so that a stable output voltage is maintained (¶¶ [0022], [0029]–[0030]), and that the control error value carried in that packet drives the transmitter's feedback loop for setting the primary coil current and operating point (¶¶ [0031]–[0033], FIG. 4). Martchovsky further teaches that the transmitter's response to a receiver packet is conventionally limited to an acknowledgment, and identifies the need to permit the transmitter to send other packets — including status reports, requests, and data — after a receiver packet during the power transfer phase, expressly identifying authentication of the receiver as one motivating use case, and expressly requiring that this be done "while keeping compatibility with the existing timing rules of the WPC standard" (¶¶ [0034]–[0037]).
Critically, Martchovsky teaches how the transmitter's data packets must be dimensioned and scheduled so that the receiver's control error packets continue to be sent and received on schedule. Martchovsky teaches that the transmitter's packet is started within a bounded delay (3 ms to 10 ms) after the end of a received packet, that all WPC timing requirements are to be followed, and that where the preceding receiver packet was a control error packet with a nonzero value the transmitter must ensure the control delay time limit is met (¶ [0038], FIG. 6). From the receiver side, Martchovsky teaches that the receiver "ensures the minimum timing required by the WPC specification is met before sending the next receive packet," and that where the last receive packet was a control error packet the start of control is delayed by the longer of the calculated duration of the transmit packet or the control delay (¶ [0039]). Martchovsky claim 16 recites that where the receive packet is a control error packet, a second receive packet is transmitted within the timing requirements of the WPC standard; claims 9 and 17 recite that WPC timing requirements are met; and claims 6 and 15 recite that the transmit packet is a data transfer packet.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, implementing the wireless power transmitter of '965 claim 1, would have recognized that the ADT data stream carrying the divided authentication response message is transmitted during the power transfer phase, concurrently with the receiver's mandatory periodic control error feedback. Martchovsky teaches that transmitter-originated data traffic inserted into that phase must be constrained in size and timing so that the receiver's control error packets are still exchanged within the standard's timing requirements, on the express rationale that the control error packet is what regulates the transmitter's operating point and that departing from the timing rules breaks compatibility and destabilizes power control (¶¶ [0029]–[0033], [0035], [0038]–[0039]). It therefore would have been obvious to divide the message of the '965 transmitter's data stream into packets sized so as to allow the receiving timing of a control error data packet, in order to maintain power-loop regulation and standard compliance while the authentication exchange proceeds. The modification is the application of a known technique — bounding transmitter packet size and timing so as to preserve the control error cadence — to a known device ready for that improvement, yielding no more than the predictable result of an authentication data stream that coexists with the power control loop. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D).
Claims 2–5:
Instant claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 are identical in wording to reference claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, reciting the authentication message enumeration (GET_DIGESTS / GET_CERTIFICATE / CHALLENGE and DIGESTS / CERTIFICATE / CHALLENGE_AUTH / ERROR), the end-of-stream auxiliary data control packet, the auxiliary data packet following the auxiliary data control packet, and the condition that the auxiliary data control packet is included when the data stream length exceeds one packet. They are not patentably distinct for the reasons given as to claim 1.
Claims 6–10:
Instant claim 6 recites the method counterpart of instant claim 1 and is coextensive with reference claim 6, differing only in that (i) instant claim 6 omits the "transferring wireless power to a wireless power receiver" and "communicating with the wireless power receiver to control transmission of the wireless power" steps recited in reference claim 6, and (ii) instant claim 6 adds the CE-timing clause. Omission of limitations broadens the instant claim, and a broader claim is anticipated by or obvious over the narrower patented claim falling within its scope. The added clause is addressed under claim 1 above; Martchovsky's teachings are set forth in method form and apply directly (see Martchovsky claims 1, 6, 7, 9). Instant claims 7–10 are identical to reference claims 7–10.
Claims 11–15:
Instant claim 11 recites a wireless power receiver comprising a power pickup and a controller configured to perform the operations reciprocal to those recited for the transmitter in reference claim 1 — transmitting the authentication request message, receiving the data stream of ADT data packets carrying the divided authentication response message, receiving the auxiliary data control packet, transmitting the first response, receiving the first ADT data packet, transmitting the second response, and receiving the first ADT data packet again — in the receiver structure recited in reference claim 11.
Claims directed to two devices that are complementary parties to a single recited communication transaction are not patentably distinct. The transmitter of reference claim 1 cannot perform its recited transmissions and receptions unless a receiver performs the corresponding receptions and transmissions; a person of ordinary skill would immediately envisage the receiver-side counterpart, and reference claim 11 confirms that the applicant claimed a wireless power receiver having a power pickup and controller carrying out the same auxiliary-data-control-packet / first-response / first-ADT-packet / second-response / retransmission exchange.
Instant claim 11 further recites that a message related to the data stream is divided into packets to allow a transmitting timing of a control error (CE) data packet. This is the receiver-side statement of the same constraint addressed under claim 1, and Martchovsky teaches it from the receiver's perspective: the receiver ensures the minimum WPC timing is met before sending its next packet, and where the last receive packet was a control error packet the receiver delays the start of control by the longer of the transmit packet duration or the control delay (¶ [0039]); Martchovsky claim 16 recites that where the receive packet is a control error packet, a second receive packet is transmitted within WPC timing requirements. For the reasons given as to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at instant claim 11 from reference claims 1 and 11 in view of Martchovsky.
Instant claims 12–15 are identical to reference claims 12–15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PARK (US 2019/0021001); Chu (US 2015/0244201); Elad (US 2017/0237301); and TANIGUCHI (US 2019/0058568).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights