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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 12, the Applicant addresses the previous claim objection to claim 6. Based upon the most recent amendments, the previous objection to claim 6 has been overcome, and is therefore withdrawn.
At pages 13-14, the Applicant argues with respective to independent claims 1 and 10. The Applicant states that prior art Matsukura “does not disclose terminating wireless power transfer responsive to detecting that a power loss exceeds a power loss threshold when the power factor is greater than a power factor threshold, while refraining from terminating the wireless power transfer despite the power loss when the power factor is less than the power factor threshold…. Matsukura does not disclose two different responses to the same power loss based on whether the power factor is greater than or less than the recited threshold.” The Applicant further argues that Matsukura “does not disclose refraining from terminating wireless power transfer despite the existence of the power loss when the power factor is less than the power factor threshold… does not disclose that such a condition corresponds to a receiver displacement condition for which wireless power transfer is intentionally permitted to continue despite the power loss.”
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertions/arguments. Prior art Matsukura states, at paragraph 0033 for example, that a controller determines whether or not a difference between a calculated power factor is less than a predetermined tolerable change value based on a respective comparison. Matsukura further discloses at paragraph 0033 that when the difference is less than a power factor threshold, read on by the tolerable change value, AC power supply continues; however, when the difference is greater, the supply of AC power is to be stopped. That is, when the power factor of the wireless power transfer is greater than the power factor threshold (i.e., the calculated power factor difference is greater in comparison to the tolerable change value) AC power supply is stopped, thereby “terminating” the wireless power transfer process, and when the power factor of the wireless power transfer is less than the power factor threshold (i.e., the calculated power factor difference is lesser in comparison to the tolerable change value) AC power supply is allowed to continue, thereby “refraining from terminating” the wireless power transfer process. At paragraph 0036, Matsukura further teaches that when the difference is greater than the tolerable change value, the power controller stops the supply of AC power. Therefore, Matsukura teaches monitoring of a power factor, comparing the power factor to a predetermined threshold/criteria, and selectively continuing or stopping wireless power transfer based on the result of the comparison. Accordingly, the claimed terminating and refraining from terminating operations are alternative outcomes of the same power-factor based control determination.
The Applicant’s further assertion that Matsukura does not disclose a receiver displacement condition for which power transfer is intentionally permitted to continue despite the power loss is also not persuasive. It is noted that independent claims 1 and 10 do not require the recited power-factor condition to correspond to a receiver displacement condition. Furthermore, as addressed above, Matsukura is configured to continue the supply of AC power so long as the respective conditions required for power supply termination have not been met. At paragraph 0033, Matsukura establishes that so long as the power-factor difference remains less than the predetermined tolerable change value, the supply of AC power is to continue.
Accordingly, Matsukura’s disclosure is not merely a teaching of discontinuing charging in response to a degraded power factor, as alleged by the Applicant. Rather, Matsukura expressly teaches threshold-based determination having two alternative control responses: continuing AC power when the power-factor difference is below the tolerable range value and stopping AC power when the power-factor difference exceeds the tolerable range value. Said teachings, when taken into combination with the teachings of prior art Schwartz which disclose detecting and comparing a respective power loss, establish a system and respective method in which wireless power transfer is allowed to continue or is terminated responsive to conditions in which a power factor is less than a power factor threshold value or greater than the power factor threshold value and a power loss is greater than a power loss threshold.
At pages 14-15, the Applicant argues with respect to independent claim 27. The Applicant states, prior art Matsukura “does not teach or suggest the determination now recited in amended independent claim 27… Matsukura does not determine a displaced receiver condition of the receiver responsive to the power factor being less than a power factor threshold.”
In response, the examiner respectfully agrees with the Applicant’s arguments/remarks. While the prior art of record, namely Matsukura as addressed above, discloses an apparatus in which a power factor is respectively measured and compared against a threshold value in order to determine the presence of a foreign object or a displaced receiver (see, at least, paragraphs 0007, 0048, etc. which disclose recognizing changes in power factor during charging including insertion of a foreign object, a change in distance between coils, etc.), the prior art of record fails to appropriately teach or suggest, while the receiver is in the displaced receiver condition, preventing termination of the wireless power transfer due to a power loss associated with foreign object interference. That is, while the system contemplates the prevention of stopping the wireless power transfer under certain conditions, as addressed in greater detail above, the prior art of record fails to contemplate such a scenario in which a power loss associated with foreign object interference is prevented from termination while in the displaced receiver condition. Said claim language, as currently presented, appears to be directed towards a non-obvious improvement over the prior art of record as the prior art fails to appropriately teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, controller functionality in which a displaced receiver condition has been determined, and while in the displaced receiver condition, refraining/preventing termination of the wireless power transfer process despite further determining a power loss associated with foreign object interference. Dependent claims 28-30 are currently believed to be in condition for allowance based upon their dependency of independent claim 27.
An updated action is provided below to address the most recent claim amendments. That is, the rejections with respect to claims 1-4, 7, and 10-13 remain upheld based upon the arguments presented above, the claim objection to dependent claim 6 for minor informalities has been overcome, dependent claims 5-6, 8-9, and 14 remain 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, and claims 15-30 currently believed to be in condition for allowance.
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, and 10-13 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 despite the power loss of the wireless power transfer when the power factor is 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 the power factor being less than the power factor threshold when the wireless power transfer exhibits the power loss 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. See also paragraphs 0007, 0048, etc. of Matsukura).
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 despite the power loss of the wireless power transfer when the power factor is 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 the power factor being less than the power factor threshold when the wireless power transfer exhibits the power loss 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. See also paragraphs 0007, 0048, etc. of Matsukura).
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-9, and 14 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 apparent 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: 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. 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 15-30 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.
Independent claim 27 is currently believed to be in condition for allowance. While the prior art of record, namely Matsukura as addressed above, discloses an apparatus in which a power factor is respectively measured and compared against a threshold value in order to determine the presence of a foreign object or a displaced receiver (see, at least, paragraphs 0007, 0048, etc. which disclose recognizing changes in power factor during charging including insertion of a foreign object, a change in distance between coils, etc.), the prior art of record fails to appropriately teach or suggest, while the receiver is in the displaced receiver condition, preventing termination of the wireless power transfer due to a power loss associated with foreign object interference. That is, while the system contemplates the prevention of stopping the wireless power transfer under certain conditions, as addressed in greater detail above, the prior art of record fails to contemplate such a scenario in which a power loss associated with foreign object interference is prevented from termination while in the displaced receiver condition. Said claim language, as currently presented, appears to be directed towards a non-obvious improvement over the prior art of record as the prior art fails to appropriately teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, controller functionality in which a displaced receiver condition has been determined, and while in the displaced receiver condition, refraining/preventing termination of the wireless power transfer process despite further determining a power loss associated with foreign object interference. Dependent claims 28-30 are currently believed to be in condition for allowance based upon their dependency of independent claim 27.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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