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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III, Figs. 5A-5D in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. Subsequently, claims 3-6, 10-11, 14-17, and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8 and 18 recite the phrase “four bidirectional switches disposed in a crisscross manner,” which lacks sufficient structural clarity to positively limit the claims because it fails to explain how the four switches are spatially or electrically arranged relative to one another. That is, the language is objected to as lacking clarity because it does not specify how the four switches are arranged, interconnected, or oriented in order to constitute a “crisscross” configuration. Without further structural or functional context, the phrase is subjective and does not clearly define the positional relationship among the switches. Said limitation will be examined under its broadest reasonable interpretation as best understood. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1: It is unclear as to the respective degree of desaturation that is to take place, the duration for which it is required to take place, the timing relative to the AC waveform, etc. It is unclear as to when desaturation is to begin, what components are responsible for performing the desaturation as claimed, when the desaturation is considered to be complete, or whether ordinary magnetic desaturation would qualify. Furthermore, the language stating, “such that the MEH system…” fails to recite a step or structural change, but rather describes a desired outcome. It is further unclear as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would determine what conduct is required to ensure this result, or how to know whether the method step has been satisfied. While claims may be written in a broad manner, the examiner believes the scope of the claim is unclear, as the claim depends on what happens rather than what is done. The claim fails to specify what constitutes as “desaturating,” what qualifies as a “power transfer window”. Furthermore, the clause “such that” merely recites a desired result without reciting the steps, structure, or conditions necessary to achieve that result. It appears the claim attempts to define the invention by a result that may inherently occur in conventional magnetic energy harvesting systems, without reciting objective boundaries or enforceable method steps, and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Dependent claims 2 and 7-9 fail to cure the deficiencies as currently presented. Similar rationale holds true with respect to independent claim 12 and its dependent claims, 13 and 18-19. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
With respect to claim 7: it is unclear how ‘providing’ limits a method, and it is unclear what conduct constitutes “achieving” commutation. It is further unclear whether the switches must be operated. Additionally, it is unclear how the recited structural features further limit performance of the claimed method, rendering the scope of claim 7 ambiguous. Similar rationale and concerns are presented with respect to claims 8-9 as it is unclear how the recited structural features further limit the performance of the claimed method.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murphy (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0049262).
Regarding Claim 1:
Murphy discloses a method for mid-cycle desaturation of a magnetic energy harvesting (MEH) system, the method comprising: desaturating a magnetic core of the MEH system (Fig. 2, transformer core 12, processor 62, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0026-0036, etc. which disclose the processor 62 providing a bias voltage to feedback bias winding 30 to “de-saturate the transformer core 12”) such that the MEH system has a plurality of power transfer windows within one alternating current (AC) half-cycle of the MEH system (The phrase ‘such that the MEH system…’ merely recites an intended result of desaturating the magnetic core and does not impose any additional method steps or structural limitations. That is, the recitation merely expresses an intended result of desaturating the magnetic core and does not impose any additional structural or operational limitations on the claimed method. Accordingly, the language is considered non-limiting and met by prior art Murphy as the prior art discloses the respective desaturation of a magnetic core within an AC power system).
Regarding Claim 2:
Murphy teaches the limitation of the preceding claim 1. Murphy further discloses, wherein desaturating the magnetic core of the MEH system comprises: providing an additional control voltage to MEH system (Fig. 2, transformer core 12, processor 62, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0023, 0025-0036, etc. which disclose the processor 62 providing a bias voltage to feedback bias winding 30 to “de-saturate the transformer core 12”. The ‘additional control voltage’ read on by the bias voltage is provided to desaturate the transformer core 12 as discussed. Furthermore, the term ‘additional’ is merely viewed as nomenclature for the control voltage as the claims fail to recite an initial provision of control voltage); and utilizing the additional control voltage to desaturate the magnetic core of the MEH system once the magnetic core goes into saturation (see, at least, paragraphs 0023-0036, etc. which discloses the bias voltage is to be provided to the transformer core 12, placed in a saturation state, in order to desaturate the transformer core, and when the bias voltage is removed, the transformer core will again become saturated. That is, the bias voltage is utilized to desaturate the magnetic core when the magnetic core becomes saturated).
Regarding Claim 7:
Murphy teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While claim 7 depends from claim 1, it does not further limit the claimed method. The recited “step” of “providing a plurality of bidirectional switches” merely introduces structural features without reciting any act of operating or using the switches. Furthermore, the phrase ‘to achieve’ merely expresses an intended result rather than a positive method step. Accordingly, claim 7 has the same scope as claim 1 for the purposes of anticipation. Since Murphy anticipates claim 1, Murphy also anticipates claim 7. That is, claim 7 does not further limit the claimed method as the limitation merely introduces structural features and recites an intended result without positively reciting an act of operating the switches. Therefore, since the recited ‘providing’ step merely introduces structure and the accompanying ‘to achieve’ language states an intended result without reciting any operational acts, the limitation does not further limit the claimed method, and claim 7 has the same scope as claim 1 for purposes of anticipation.
Regarding Claim 8:
Murphy teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 7. While claim 8 ultimately depends from claim 1, it does not further limit the claimed method. The recited language stating, “the plurality of bidirectional switches comprises four bidirectional switches disposed in a crisscross manner” merely introduces structural features without reciting any act of operating or using the switches. Accordingly, claim 8 has the same scope as claim 1 for the purposes of anticipation. Since Murphy anticipates claim 1, Murphy also anticipates claim 8. That is, claim 8 does not further limit the claimed method as the limitation merely introduces structural features without positively reciting an act of operating the switches. Therefore, since the recited ‘providing’ step merely introduces structure, the limitation does not further limit the claimed method, and claim 8 has the same scope as claim 1 for purposes of anticipation.
Regarding Claim 9:
Murphy teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 7. While claim 9 ultimately depends from claim 1, it does not further limit the claimed method as it does not recite any additional method step beyond those in claim 1. The “wherein” clause merely expresses that current commutation is achieved and voltage is reversed through a passive rectifier, which constitutes a structural reference and intended result without positively reciting an act performed in the method. Accordingly, claim 9 does not further limit the claimed method and has the same scope as claim 1 for purposes of anticipation.
Regarding Claim 12:
Murphy discloses a magnetic energy harvesting (MEH) system configured for mid-cycle desaturation of the MEH system, the system comprising: a magnetic core (Fig. 2, transformer core 12, processor 62, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0026-0036, etc. which disclose the processor 62 providing a bias voltage to feedback bias winding 30 to “de-saturate the transformer core 12”); wherein the system is configured such that the magnetic core is desaturated such that the MEH system has a plurality of power transfer windows within one alternating current (AC) half-cycle of the MEH system (The phrase ‘such that the MEH system…’ merely recites an intended result of desaturating the magnetic core and does not impose any additional structural limitations. That is, the recitation merely expresses an intended result of desaturating the magnetic core and does not impose any additional structural or operational limitations. Accordingly, the language is considered non-limiting and met by prior art Murphy as the prior art discloses the respective desaturation of a magnetic core within an AC power system).
Regarding Claim 13:
Murphy teaches the limitation of the preceding claim 12. Murphy further discloses an additional control voltage configured to be utilized to desaturate the magnetic core of the MEH system once the magnetic core goes into saturation (Fig. 2, transformer core 12, processor 62, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0023-0036, etc. which disclose the processor 62 providing a bias voltage to feedback bias winding 30 to “de-saturate the transformer core 12”. The ‘additional control voltage’ read on by the bias voltage is provided to desaturate the transformer core 12 as discussed. Furthermore, the term ‘additional’ is merely viewed as nomenclature for the control voltage as the claims fail to recite an initial provision of control voltage. The bias voltage is to be provided to the transformer core 12, placed in a saturation state, in order to desaturate the transformer core, and when the bias voltage is removed, the transformer core will again become saturated. That is, the bias voltage is utilized to desaturate the magnetic core when the magnetic core becomes saturated).
Conclusion
**Examiner note: There is no prior art rejection for claims 18-19. Claims 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as the claim objections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.**
Prior art deemed relevant, but not currently relied upon:
Gabrielsson (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0187343)
Hamada et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0119543)
Jansen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0219009)
Edel (U.S. Patent Number 6,984,979)
Le Thiec (U.S. Patent Number 5,168,223)
MacInnis et al. (U.S. Patent Number 4,584,635)
Frosch et al. (U.S. Patent Number 4,262,259)
DePuy (U.S. Patent Number 3,725,769)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N INGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7705. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00 EST.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/JOSEPH N INGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2836