DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a non-final rejection in response to the filing of the applicant’s “response to election / restriction requirement” filed on 11/17/2025. 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 with traverse of Species C (FIG. 3, Claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“This election of species is traversed.
Examiner contends that each figure depicts a patentably distinct and mutually exclusive species. This is incorrect. The Figures merely depict different view or aspects of various embodiments. For example, Fig. 1 is a block diagram of a wireless power transfer system that depicts various components and their interrelationships. Figures 2 and 3 depict a flow charts depicting certain operational aspects of the wireless power transfer system depicted in Fig. 1 relating to initiation of a power transfer session based in part on detection of an alignment accessory. Figure 4 depicts a physical configuration of wireless power transfer devices depicted in Fig. 1, including the alignment accessory described with reference to Figs. 2 and 3, that can be used to implement the operational aspects depicted in the flow charts of Figs. 2 and 3. Figures 5 and 6 depict further aspects of the physical configuration depicted in Fig. 4, particularly showing the magnetic fields of various magnets depicted in Fig. 4 (including magnets of the alignment accessory) and detection of the fields of such magnets to implement the operational aspects depicted in Figs. 2 and 3. Figures 7 and 8 depict plotted measurements of magnetic parameters of a wireless power transfer system as depicted in Fig. 1 in the context of the operational aspects described in Figs. 2 and 3 using the physical configurations of Figs. 4 and 5.
In short, these figures do not depict mutually exclusive species, as suggested by Examiner, but rather interrelated views of different aspects of a single conceptual whole-namely, a wireless power transfer system including a wireless power transmitter, a wireless power receiver, and a method of operating them to initiate wireless power transfer in certain modes depending on certain operating conditions relating to the presence of an alignment accessory. Claims 1-18 are directed to such a method. Withdrawn claims 19-26 are drawn to the alignment accessory.
Applicant submits that a more proper Election/Restriction requirement would have been a restriction as between Group I: a method of initiating wireless power transfer responsive in part to an alignment accessory and Group II: an alignment accessory for a wireless power transfer system.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in compliance with MPEP § 818.01(b) Applicant provisionally elects the purported species of Fig. 3. Claims 1-18 read on the elected species”;
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s allegation, the examiner respectfully disagrees since this is not found persuasive because it would be a serious burden for searching the non-elected species (Species A,B, D-H) as their variable configurations including structure of wireless power transfer system, various different flowcharts (methods), configurations for detecting an alignment accessory, and detections of sufficient alignment precision using Q-factor require different search queries/strategies since these are directed to different / diverse embodiments and distinct structure configurations and arrangements of the magnetic alignment for more robust wireless power transfer.
All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.
Additionally, when two or more independent and distinct inventions are presented for examination, the examiner may make a restriction requirement if a serious burden exists. In the reply to the restriction requirement, applicant must elect one invention for examination, therefore is not permissible to elect a second invention for examination (see MPEP 818).
For applicants information, see MPEP 809.02(a), specifically, where restriction between species is appropriate (see MPEP § 808.01(a)) the examiner should send a letter including only a restriction requirement).
The particular reasons relied on by the examiner for holding that the inventions as claimed are either independent or distinct were concisely stated in the requirement for restriction/election sent on 09/24/2025.
Action as follows should be taken:
(A) Identify generic claims or indicate that no generic claims are present. See MPEP § 806.04(d) for definition of a generic claim.
(B) Clearly identify each (or in aggravated cases at least exemplary ones) of the disclosed species, to which claims are to be restricted. The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively. In the absence of distinct figures or examples to identify the several species, the mechanical means, the particular material, or other distinguishing characteristic of the species should be stated for each species identified. If the species cannot be conveniently identified, the claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted. Provide reasons why the species are independent or distinct.
(C) Applicant should then be required to elect a single disclosed species under 35 U.S.C. 121, and advised as to the requisites of a complete reply and his or her rights under 37 CFR 1.141.
Therefore, claims 19-26 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7,10-12,14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keeling et al, US Patent Application Publication (2014/0203769 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Keeling et al discloses a method (see Figs 1-5) for detecting an alignment accessory (p.0063: “... alignment of the receiver coils with the two substantially co-planar transmitter coils ...”) in a wireless power transfer system (figure 5) including a wireless power transmitter (510,512 in figure 5) and wireless power receiver (546 in figure 5) and initiating a more robust wireless power profile than a lower performance profile in response thereto (p.0062: “... transmitter coil is perfectly aligned with the receiver coils ...”),
the method being performed by a controller (544 in figure 5) of the wireless power receiver (p.0088: “... the electric vehicle controller 544 determines the transmitter coil arrangement and an alignment of the transmitter coils 303 a, 303 b, and/or 306 and the receiver coils 304 a, 304 b, and 305 ...”) and comprising
detecting presence or absence of the alignment accessory using one or more sensors of the wireless power receiver (p.0073: “... current sensors or power sensors, configured to detect the current (or power) induced in the electric vehicle induction coil 516. Measurements from the sensors may be transmitted to the electric vehicle controller 544 ...”); and responsive to the presence of the alignment accessory, enabling a more robust wireless power transfer profile flag; or responsive to the absence of the alignment accessory, disabling the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag (p.0094: " ... electric vehicle controller 544 may enable the co-planar receiver coils 304 a and 304 b enabled and enable or disable the third receiver coil 305 based on the alignment ...”).
Regarding claim 2, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: detecting presence or absence of the wireless power transmitter (512,508) (see Fig 5; par. [0046],[0073],[0077]); and in accordance with detecting presence of the alignment accessory in absence of the wireless power transmitter (512,508), enabling the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag; or in accordance with detecting absence of the alignment accessory in the presence of the wireless power transmitter (512,508), disabling the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag (see Fig 5; par. [0046],[0073],[0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 2 further comprising: responsive to the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag being enabled and subsequently detecting presence of a wireless power transmitter (512,508), advertising the more robust wireless power transfer profile capability to the wireless power transmitter (512,508) (p.0094: " ... electric vehicle controller 544 may enable the co-planar receiver coils 304 a and 304 b enabled and enable or disable the third receiver coil 305 based on the alignment ...”); or
responsive to the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag being disabled and subsequently detecting presence of a wireless power transmitter (512,508), advertising one or more wireless power transfer profile capabilities different than the more robust wireless power transfer profile to the wireless power transmitter (p.0094: " ... electric vehicle controller 544 may enable the co-planar receiver coils 304 a and 304 b enabled and enable or disable the third receiver coil 305 based on the alignment ...”).
Regarding claim 4, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 3 wherein: the more robust wireless power transfer profile is a magnetic power profile in accordance with a Qi standard promulgated by the Wireless Power Consortium; and one or more wireless power transfer profile capabilities different than the more robust wireless power transfer profile to the wireless power transmitter include at least one of a base power profile (BPP) and an enhanced power profile (EPP) in accordance with a Qi standard promulgated by the Wireless Power Consortium (see Figs 1-5 and par [0024]-[0031],[0073] disclosing a wireless power transfer system 100,500 (IPT: inductive power transfer), in which discloses the devices that operate using the Qi standard rely on electromagnetic induction between planar coils,
in addition, the claimed subject-matter does not involve an inventive step as solely details of power profile with regard to the Qi standard are drafted which however seem to be straightforward solutions to improve the handling of wireless power transmissions).
Regarding claim 5, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
if the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag is enabled and a presence of a wireless power transmitter (512,508) is subsequently detected, advertising a more robust wireless power transfer profile capability to the wireless power transmitter (p.0094: " ... electric vehicle controller 544 may enable the co-planar receiver coils 304 a and 304 b enabled and enable or disable the third receiver coil 305 based on the alignment ...”); or
if the more robust wireless power transfer profile flag is disabled and a presence of a wireless power transmitter (512,508) is subsequently detected, advertising one or more wireless power transfer profile capabilities different than the more robust wireless power transfer profile to the wireless power transmitter (p.0094: " ... electric vehicle controller 544 may enable the co-planar receiver coils 304 a and 304 b enabled and enable or disable the third receiver coil 305 based on the alignment ...”).
Regarding claim 6, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 5 wherein:
the more robust wireless power transfer profile is a magnetic power profile in accordance with a Qi standard promulgated by the Wireless Power Consortium (see Figs 1-5 and par [0024]-[0031],[0073] disclosing a wireless power transfer system 100,500 (IPT: inductive power transfer), in which discloses the devices that operate using the Qi standard rely on electromagnetic induction between planar coils,
in addition, the claimed subject-matter does not involve an inventive step as solely details of power profile with regard to the Qi standard are drafted which however seem to be straightforward solutions to improve the handling of wireless power transmissions); and
one or more wireless power transfer profile capabilities different than the more robust wireless power transfer profile to the wireless power transmitter include at least one of a base power profile (BPP) and an enhanced power profile (EPP) in accordance with a Qi standard promulgated by the Wireless Power Consortium (see Figs 1-5 and par [0024]-[0031],[0073] disclosing a wireless power transfer system 100,500 (IPT: inductive power transfer), in which discloses the devices that operate using the Qi standard rely on electromagnetic induction between planar coils,
in addition, the claimed subject-matter does not involve an inventive step as solely details of power profile with regard to the Qi standard are drafted which however seem to be straightforward solutions to improve the handling of wireless power transmissions).
Regarding claim 7, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 1 wherein detecting presence or absence of the alignment accessory using one or more sensors of the wireless power receiver (546 in figure 5) comprises detecting one or more magnets of the alignment accessory using one or more magnetic sensors (p.0063: “... alignment of the receiver coils with the two substantially co-planar transmitter coils ...”, in addition see magnet in par. [0022],[0024],[0030],[0039],[0041],[0050] and furthermore par. [0073] disclosing multiples sensors, the electric vehicle power converter 538 may also include one or more sensors, such as current sensors or power sensors, configured to detect the current (or power) induced in the electric vehicle induction coil 516. Measurements from the sensors may be transmitted to the electric vehicle controller 544).
Regarding claim 10, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 1 wherein detecting presence or absence of the alignment accessory using one or more sensors of the wireless power receiver (546 in figure 5) comprises detecting one or more near field communication (NFC) tags of the alignment accessory using one or more NFC pollers or readers (see Figs 1-5 and Near Field scheme in par. [0031],[0039]-[0040],[0048],[0052]-[0053],[0073],[0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Keeling et al discloses a method (see Figs 1-5) for detecting alignment between a wireless power transmitter (510,512 in figure 5) and a wireless power receiver (546 in figure 5) in a wireless power transfer system (510) and initiating a more robust wireless power profile than a lower performance profile in response thereto (p.0062: “... transmitter coil is perfectly aligned with the receiver coils ...”), the method being performed by a controller (544 in figure 5) of the wireless power transmitter (512) or the wireless power receiver (514) and comprising:
detecting alignment of the wireless power transmitter (512) and wireless power receiver (514) (p.0073: “... current sensors or power sensors, configured to detect the current (or power) induced in the electric vehicle induction coil 516. Measurements from the sensors may be transmitted to the electric vehicle controller 544 ...”); and responsive to the alignment being within a predetermined level, enabling the more robust wireless power transfer profile; or responsive to the alignment being greater than the predetermined level, disabling the more robust wireless power transfer profile (p.0094: " ... electric vehicle controller 544 may enable the co-planar receiver coils 304 a and 304 b enabled and enable or disable the third receiver coil 305 based on the alignment ...”).
Regarding claim 12, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the more robust wireless power transfer profile is a magnetic power profile in accordance with a Qi standard promulgated by the Wireless Power Consortium (see Figs 1-5 and par [0024]-[0031],[0073] disclosing a wireless power transfer system 100,500 (IPT: inductive power transfer), in which discloses the devices that operate using the Qi standard rely on electromagnetic induction between planar coils,
in addition, the claimed subject-matter does not involve an inventive step as solely details of power profile with regard to the Qi standard are drafted which however seem to be straightforward solutions to improve the handling of wireless power transmissions).
Regarding claim 14, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 11 wherein detecting alignment of the wireless power transmitter and wireless power receiver further comprises measuring two or more electromagnetic properties of the wireless power transfer system and comparing the two or more measured electromagnetic properties to a threshold curve (see Figs 1-5 and alignment in par. [0033], [0038],[0061],[0063]-[0071],[0073],[0075] and [0088] and threshold value in par. [0080], [0085]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 15, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the threshold curve is derived from a regression analysis of a plurality of measurements of the two or more electromagnetic properties (see Figs 1-5 and par. [0073] and [0079] disclosing operation based on measured current values and power values).
Regarding claim 16, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the two or more measured electromagnetic properties include coupling coefficient and Q-factor (see Figs 1-5 and par. [0040] disclosing the Q factor and par. [0043] disclosing the coupling coefficient).
Regarding claim 17, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the two or more measured electromagnetic properties include resonant frequency and Q-factor (see Figs 1-5 and par. [0039]-[0040], [0047], [0052],[0073] disclosing the resonant frequency and par. [0040] disclosing the Q factor).
Regarding claim 18, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 14 wherein the threshold curve is programmed into the controller (542,544) of the wireless power transmitter (512) or wireless power receiver (514) at manufacture (see Figs 1-5 and threshold value in par. [0080], [0085]-[0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeling et al, US Patent Application Publication (2014/0203769 A1) in view of Pathipati, US Patent Application Publication (2022/0379760 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 7;
Keeling et al does not clearly discloses wherein the one or more magnetic sensors include a Hall Effect sensor.
However, Pathipati is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses a wireless-charging adapter is connectable to a direct current (DC) fast charger and includes an induction coil for wireless charging a second induction coil on a vehicle. In some instances, the adapter may include an electrical connector to mate with a DC fast charger. In addition, the adapter may include hardware and/or software to receive a DC from the DC fast charger and provide an alternating current (AC) to the induction coil. The induction coil of the adapter may be positioned (e.g., on a ground surface) to align with an induction coil on a vehicle and further discloses wherein the one or more magnetic sensors include a Hall Effect sensor (see Figs 1A-4; par. [0028],[0037]).
Therefore, when both references are combined, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keeling et al with the teachings of Pathipati by including wherein the one or more magnetic sensors include a Hall Effect sensor in order to provide a sensor that detects a magnetic field resulting from a proximity of the second induction coil.
Regarding claim 9 Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 7;
Keeling et al does not clearly discloses wherein the one or more magnetic sensors include a magnetometer.
However, Pathipati is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses a wireless-charging adapter is connectable to a direct current (DC) fast charger and includes an induction coil for wireless charging a second induction coil on a vehicle. In some instances, the adapter may include an electrical connector to mate with a DC fast charger. In addition, the adapter may include hardware and/or software to receive a DC from the DC fast charger and provide an alternating current (AC) to the induction coil. The induction coil of the adapter may be positioned (e.g., on a ground surface) to align with an induction coil on a vehicle and further discloses wherein the one or more magnetic sensors include a magnetometer (see Figs 1A-4; par. [0028],[0053],[0057]).
Therefore, when both references are combined, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keeling et al with the teachings of Pathipati by including wherein the one or more magnetic sensors include a magnetometer in order to provide a device that measures magnetic field (B) or magnetic dipole moment, this provides the benefit of to wirelessly charge a battery of a vehicle using a contact-based DC fast charger (Pathipati, par. [0014]). Different types of magnetometers measure the direction, strength, or relative change of the magnetic B-field at a particular location, the magnetometer provide key benefits, such as operates in diverse environments, lower power consumption.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keeling et al, US Patent Application Publication (2014/0203769 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Keeling et al discloses the method of claim 11 except for wherein the predetermined alignment level is a radial offset less than or equal to 3mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the predetermined alignment level is a radial offset less than or equal to 3mm, 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 .2d272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In addition, the claimed value does not add any unexpected results.
Examiner Note
9. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836