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 with traverse of Species III, Fig. 5 in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims do not recite the distinguishing hardware across the multiple Species. This is not found persuasive because a Species restriction requirement is proper where the claims are broad enough to read on multiple patentably distinct disclosed Species, even if the claims do not expressly recite all differing hardware. The disclosed Species nevertheless require different prior art searches and examination due to their distinct underlying hardware/configurations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites, “…to a second value to at least partially…” (emphasis added). This appears to be a minor typo. Said limitation will be examined as, “…to a second value at least partially…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-13, 27-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0320911) in view of Matsukura et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0333258).
Regarding Claim 1:
Schwartz et al. discloses a method comprising: at a controller (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 16) of a transmitter (Figs. 1-2, power transmitting device 12) including an inverter (Figs. 1-2, inverter 61) and one or more transmit coils (Figs. 1-2, coil(s) 36), controlling the inverter to generate a wireless power signal in the one or more transmit coils which inductively couple with one or more receive coils of a receiver for wireless power transfer (Figs. 1-2, controller 16, inverter 61, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0021); terminating the wireless power transfer at least partially responsive to detecting a power loss of the wireless power transfer to be greater than a power loss threshold (Figs. 1-2, controller 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0005, 0014-0021, 0031, etc. which disclose if an estimated power loss value is determined to be above a predetermined threshold, power transfer operations may be halted or otherwise forgone. See also Fig. 4 and its related discussion). While Schwartz discloses the utilization of recognized operational metrics for assisting in making a determination whether to terminate power transfer, Schwartz fails to teach monitoring and comparing a power factor of the wireless power transfer.
However, Matsukura et al. discloses terminating the wireless power transfer when a power factor of the wireless power transfer is greater than a power factor threshold (see, at least, paragraphs 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc. which disclose the power controller comparing the power factor to a power factor threshold, read on by a tolerable change value in relation to a starting power factor, and when the difference is greater than the tolerable change value stopping the power transfer); and refraining from terminating the wireless power transfer at least partially responsive to detecting the power factor to be less than the power factor threshold (see, at least, paragraphs 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc. which disclose the power controller comparing the power factor to a power factor threshold, read on by a tolerable change value in relation to a starting power factor, and when the difference is less than the tolerable change value continuing the power transfer. Furthermore, a controller configured to terminate only when specified conditions are met necessarily refrains from terminating when those conditions are not met. Thus, conditional termination logic inherently includes the complementary non-termination operational state under broadest reasonable interpretation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwartz to additionally monitor and evaluate power factor as taught within Matsukura in determining whether to terminate wireless power transfer, because power factor was a known indicator of wireless power transfer operating efficiency and coupling conditions, and incorporating multiple electrical operating parameters into foreign-object detection and transfer-control decisions would have predictably improved detection accuracy and reduced erroneous transfer termination events.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses wherein detecting the power loss to be greater than the power loss threshold when the power factor is greater than the power factor threshold is indicative of foreign object interference (see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0014-0021, 0031, etc.).
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 2. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses wherein detecting the power factor to be less than the power factor threshold is indicative of receiver displacement of the receiver relative to a predetermined charging position associated with the transmitter (see, at least, paragraph 0031 which discloses the respective measurements used to estimate coupling may be indicative of possible misalignment. That is, the combination respectively teaches monitoring power loss and power factor for information related to the coupling relationship between the transmitter and receiver including foreign object detection, possible misalignment, and other factors).
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses determining an active power of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on a product of detected coil voltage and detected coil current (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 16, measurement circuitry 41 including voltage measurement circuitry 41A and current measurement circuitry 41B, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc.); determining a receiver power of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on one or more indications communicated from the receiver (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 30, measurement circuitry 43 including voltage measurement circuitry 43A and current measurement circuitry 43B, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc. which disclose the subsequent exchange of information between devices within system 8 including the exchange of measurements made using measurement circuitry); and determining the power loss at least partially based on a difference between the active power and the receiver power (see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc. which disclose the subsequent exchange of information between devices within system 8 including the exchange of measurements made using measurement circuitry to ultimately determine the amount of power loss, such as due to the presence of a foreign object).
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While Modified Schwartz discloses detecting the power factor to be less than the power factor threshold as addressed above, Modified Schwartz fails to teach changing an operating frequency of the wireless power signal at least partially responsive to said condition.
However, Matsukura discloses changing an operating frequency of the wireless power signal at least partially responsive to determining the displaced receiver condition (see, at least, paragraphs 0006-0009 which disclose AC power supply control corresponding to changes in the power factor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Modified Schwartz to realize control responsive to a detected operating condition, as taught within Matsukura, to allow for changes in the power factor, or various operating conditions, to be flexibly coped with, thereby establishing a more robust, complete, and efficient system.
Regarding Claim 10:
Schwartz et al. discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-2, wireless power system 8) comprising: a transmitter (Figs. 1-2, power transmitting device 12) including: a transmitter circuitry (Figs. 1-2, inverter 61, coil(s) 36, etc. and their related discussion), the transmitter circuitry including an inverter (Figs. 1-2, inverter 61) and one or more transmit coils (Figs. 1-2, coil(s) 36) to inductively couple with one or more receive coils of a receiver (Figs. 1-2, coil(s) 36 coupling with coil(s) 48 of the power receiving device 24, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0021); and a controller (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 16) to: control the inverter to generate a wireless power signal in the one or more transmit coils for wireless power transfer (Figs. 1-2, controller 16, inverter 61, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0021); terminate the wireless power transfer at least partially responsive to detecting a power loss of the wireless power transfer to be greater than a power loss threshold (Figs. 1-2, controller 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0005, 0014-0021, 0031, etc. which disclose if an estimated power loss value is determined to be above a predetermined threshold, power transfer operations may be halted or otherwise forgone. See also Fig. 4 and its related discussion). While Schwartz discloses the utilization of recognized operational metrics for assisting in making a determination whether to terminate power transfer, Schwartz fails to teach monitoring and comparing a power factor of the wireless power transfer.
However, Matsukura et al. discloses terminate the wireless power transfer when a power factor of the wireless power transfer is greater than a power factor threshold (see, at least, paragraphs 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc. which disclose the power controller comparing the power factor to a power factor threshold, read on by a tolerable change value in relation to a starting power factor, and when the difference is greater than the tolerable change value stopping the power transfer); and refrain from terminating the wireless power transfer at least partially responsive to detecting the power factor to be less than the power factor threshold (see, at least, paragraphs 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc. which disclose the power controller comparing the power factor to a power factor threshold, read on by a tolerable change value in relation to a starting power factor, and when the difference is less than the tolerable change value continuing the power transfer. Furthermore, a controller configured to terminate only when specified conditions are met necessarily refrains from terminating when those conditions are not met. Thus, conditional termination logic inherently includes the complementary non-termination operational state under broadest reasonable interpretation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwartz to additionally monitor and evaluate power factor as taught within Matsukura in determining whether to terminate wireless power transfer, because power factor was a known indicator of wireless power transfer operating efficiency and coupling conditions, and incorporating multiple electrical operating parameters into foreign-object detection and transfer-control decisions would have predictably improved detection accuracy and reduced erroneous transfer termination events.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 10. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses wherein detecting the power loss to be greater than the power loss threshold when the power factor is greater than the power factor threshold is indicative of foreign object interference (see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0014-0021, 0031, etc.).
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 11. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses wherein detecting the power factor to be less than the power factor threshold is indicative of receiver displacement of the receiver relative to a predetermined charging position associated with the transmitter (see, at least, paragraph 0031 which discloses the respective measurements used to estimate coupling may be indicative of possible misalignment. That is, the combination respectively teaches monitoring power loss and power factor for information related to the coupling relationship between the transmitter and receiver including foreign object detection, possible misalignment, and other factors).
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 10. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses wherein: the controller is to: determine an active power of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on a product of detected coil voltage and detected coil current (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 16, measurement circuitry 41 including voltage measurement circuitry 41A and current measurement circuitry 41B, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc.); determine a receiver power of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on one or more indications communicated from the receiver (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 30, measurement circuitry 43 including voltage measurement circuitry 43A and current measurement circuitry 43B, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc. which disclose the subsequent exchange of information between devices within system 8 including the exchange of measurements made using measurement circuitry); and determine the power loss at least partially based on a difference between the active power and the receiver power (see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc. which disclose the subsequent exchange of information between devices within system 8 including the exchange of measurements made using measurement circuitry to ultimately determine the amount of power loss, such as due to the presence of a foreign object).
Regarding Claim 27:
Schwartz et al. discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-2, wireless power system 8) comprising: a transmitter (Figs. 1-2, power transmitting device 12) including: a transmitter circuitry (Figs. 1-2, inverter 61, coil(s) 36, etc. and their related discussion), the transmitter circuitry including an inverter (Figs. 1-2, inverter 61) and one or more transmit coils (Figs. 1-2, coil(s) 36) to inductively couple with one or more receive coils of a receiver (Figs. 1-2, coil(s) 36 coupling with coil(s) 48 of the power receiving device 24, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0021); and a controller (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 16) to: control the inverter to generate a wireless power signal in the one or more transmit coils for wireless power transfer (Figs. 1-2, controller 16, inverter 61, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0021); and determine a displaced receiver condition of the receiver at least partially responsive to detecting a power measurement to be less than a power threshold (Figs. 1-2, controller 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0005, 0014-0021, 0031, etc. which disclose the utilization of respective power measurements in relation to power thresholds to determine possible misalignment. See also Fig. 4 and its related discussion). While Schwartz discloses the utilization of recognized operational metrics for assisting in making a determination with respect to a displaced receiver condition, Schwartz fails to teach monitoring and comparing a power factor of the wireless power transfer.
However, Matsukura et al. discloses determine a power factor of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on a ratio of an active power of the wireless power transfer and an apparent power of the wireless power transfer (see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0006-0009, 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc.); and determine a condition of the receiver at least partially responsive to detecting the power factor to be less than a power factor threshold (see, at least, paragraphs 0006-0009, 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc. which disclose the power controller comparing the power factor to a power factor threshold, read on by a tolerable change value in relation to a starting power factor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwartz to additionally monitor and evaluate power factor as taught within Matsukura in determining an operating condition causing power loss such as through possible misalignment as taught within Schwartz, because power factor was a known indicator of wireless power transfer operating efficiency and coupling conditions, and incorporating multiple electrical operating parameters into power efficiency monitorization and transfer-control decisions would have predictably improved detection accuracy and reduced erroneous transfer termination events.
Regarding Claim 28:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 27. While Modified Schwartz discloses determining the displaced receiver condition as addressed above, Modified Schwartz fails to teach the controller is to: change an operating frequency of the wireless power signal at least partially in response to said condition.
However, Matsukura discloses the controller is to: change an operating frequency of the wireless power signal at least partially responsive to determining the displaced receiver condition (see, at least, paragraphs 0006-0009 which disclose AC power supply control corresponding to changes in the power factor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Modified Schwartz to realize control responsive to a detected operating condition, as taught within Matsukura, to allow for changes in the power factor, or various operating conditions, to be flexibly coped with, thereby establishing a more robust, complete, and efficient system.
Regarding Claim 30:
Modified Schwartz teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 27. Modified Schwartz, in further view of Schwartz, discloses wherein: the controller is to: determine a power loss of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on the active power and a receiver power of the receiver (Figs. 1-2, control circuitry 16, measurement circuitry 41 including voltage measurement circuitry 41A and current measurement circuitry 41B, control circuitry 30, measurement circuitry 43 including voltage measurement circuitry 43A and current measurement circuitry 43B, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc. which disclose the subsequent exchange of information between devices within system 8 including the exchange of measurements made using measurement circuitry to ultimately determine the amount of power loss, such as due to the presence of a foreign object); determine a foreign object interference condition at least partially responsive to detecting the power loss to be greater than a power loss threshold when the power factor is greater than the power factor threshold (see, at least, paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030-0033, etc. which disclose the subsequent exchange of information between devices within system 8 including the exchange of measurements made using measurement circuitry to ultimately determine the amount of power loss, such as due to the presence of a foreign object. See also Matsukura: paragraphs 0033-0036, 0043-0044, 0059, 0075, etc. which disclose the power controller comparing the power factor to a power factor threshold, read on by a tolerable change value in relation to a starting power factor, and when the difference is greater than the tolerable change value stopping the power transfer); and terminate the wireless power transfer at least partially responsive to determining the foreign object interference condition (Figs. 1-2, controller 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0005, 0014-0021, 0031, etc. which disclose if an estimated power loss value is determined to be above a predetermined threshold, power transfer operations may be halted or otherwise forgone. See also Fig. 4 and its related discussion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 14, and 29 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 5 and 14: the prior art of record fails to appropriately teach or suggest, “determining an apparat power of the wireless power transfer at least partially based on a product of root mean square (RMS) coil voltage and RMS coil current; and determining the power factor at least partially based on a ratio of the active power and the apparent power” as presented within claim 5, and similarly recited within claim 14.
With respect to claim 6: the prior art of record fails to appropriately teach or suggest, “changing the power loss threshold to a second value at least partially responsive to detecting the power factor to be less than the power factor threshold, wherein changing the power loss threshold to the second value prevents the termination of the wireless power transfer.” While the prior art discloses setting a first value for the power loss threshold, the prior art fails to teach or suggest changing the power loss threshold responsive to detecting the power factor being less than the power factor threshold in order to prevent wireless power transfer termination. Furthermore, it does not appear readily evident as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teachings of Modified Schwartz to adjust such parameters mid-operation to avoid power transfer termination under such conditions.
With respect to claims 8-9 and 29: the prior art of record fails to teach “determining whether an efficiency of the wireless power transfer at the changed operating frequency is increased with respect to a previous efficiency of the wireless power transfer; and repeating the changing of the operating frequency and the determining of whether the efficiency is increased at least partially responsive to determining that the efficiency is not increased with respect to the previous efficiency” as recited in claim 8 and similarly within claim 29. It appears as though such a modification to the prior art of record would have been considered non-obvious. Claim 9 is objected to for being ultimately dependent upon claim 8.
Claims 15-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 15 is currently believed to be in condition for allowance. While the prior art of record discloses a similar method for controlling wireless power transfer, the prior art of record fails to appropriately teach or suggest, “setting a power loss threshold to a first value; changing the power loss threshold to a second value at least partially responsive to detecting a power factor of the wireless power transfer to be less than a power factor threshold; and terminating the wireless power transfer at least partially responsive to detecting a power loss of the wireless power transfer to be greater than the power loss threshold.” Furthermore, it does not appear as such a modification to the prior art of record would have been obvious as changing the power loss threshold to a second value after setting the power loss threshold to a first value would teach away from the prior art as the purpose of establishing the power loss threshold at a first value is to set a parameter with which the system is to terminate (or refrain from terminating) power transfer, and the subsequent change of the power loss threshold to a second value mid-operation, would seemingly go against said teachings. For these reasons, inter alia, claim 15 and its subsequent dependent claims, are currently believed to be in condition for allowance, as said claim(s) appear to be directed towards a non-obvious improvement over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
**Prior art deemed relevant, but not currently relied upon**
Van Wageningen et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0052128
Ha et al. U.S. Patent Number 11,476,710
Hao et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0094043
Chae U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0296590
Yang et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0103021
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
Prosecution Insights