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
Applicants' arguments filed August 22, 2205 have been fully considered but they only partially persuasive.
The amended limitations of the Q-factor change detection scheme and determining the coupling coefficient overcome the previous combination of references. These features, however, are known in the art.
The Q-factor change detection scheme is taught by Park (US 2018/0205265) at paragraph 47. The determination of a coupling factor, K, in order to create a measure of the alignment between transmitter/receiver is taught by Weidner (US 2018/0262065) at figure 6 and paragraph 52. Yu discloses that voltage of the DC voltage signal applied to the inverter is set at one of two discrete voltage levels depending on the receiver’s alignment (fig 7-8). Weidner teaches that alignment can be quantified with K. Thus, the combination teaches basing the Yu alignment on K.
Regarding the remaining amendments, the “valid modulated signal” is taught by Park ‘390 at paragraphs 96-98, and Yu figures 6-7 shows that the transmission of wireless power (“normal operation mode”) comes “after” the first beaconing process (“standby mode”). Yu’s transmitter clearly provides one of two “discrete power levels” to its inverter and the receiver (see fig 7-8).
The art rejection (Yu in view of Park) is updated to include Park II (‘265) and Weidner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2018/0006567) in view of Weidner (US 2018/0262065) and Park (“Park I”; US 2016/0352390) in further view of Park (“Park II”; US 2018/0205265).
With respect to claim 1, Yu discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 2, 6-8; all text) comprising:
an inverter (“inverter”) that is operable to (i) receive, as input, a direct current (DC) voltage signal having a voltage level and a drive signal having an operating frequency, and (ii) produce an alternating current (AC) signal based on the DC voltage signal and the drive signal that are provided as input to the inverter;
a tuning circuit (Cs, Ls) that is operable to (i) receive the AC signal that is produced by the inverter and (ii) tune the AC signal;
a transmission antenna (unlabeled coil/inductor at the right side of the transmitter) that is operable to produce a wireless power output in accordance with the AC signal that is produced by the inverter and tuned by the tuning circuit; and
at least one processor (obvious within “control circuit” to execute the disclosed control functions) ;
at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium (obvious to inform the processor of which functions to take and when); and
executable code stored on the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to:
carry out a first beaconing process for detecting a wireless power receiver (see pulses on the left side of figs 7-8; par 29); and
based on the first beaconing process:
detect a given wireless power receiver (par 31-32);
determine a coupling level between the wireless power transmitter and the given wireless power receiver (par 32-33 – good versus bad alignment defines “a coupling level”), wherein different coupling coefficients (K) correspond to different discrete power levels within a predefined set of discrete power levels (two are shown in figures 7-8) of the wireless power transmitter (the two discrete power levels in figures 7-8 correspond to two possible alignments – each alignment inherently corresponds to a “coupling coefficient”); and
after the first beaconing process is completed (t1 marks the boundary between the completion of the beaconing process and the start of wireless power transmission), adjust the voltage level of the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter and thereby configure the wireless power transmitter to output wireless power at a discrete power level corresponding to the coupling coefficient (K) of the alignment (see fig 7-8 and par 32-33; there are two discrete voltage levels – each corresponds to an alignment that inherently is quantified by a different K).
Yu discloses a wireless power transmitter that sends out beacon pulses to detect the presence of a receiver. The transmitter then detects the coupling level of the receiver. This is shown in paragraphs 32-33, where Yu details the coupling of receivers that are misaligned (fig 7) and aligned (fig 8). A more aligned receiver results in the controller lowering the inverter’s DC input voltage. A misaligned receiver results in the controller increasing the inverter’s DC input voltage. Each alignment inherently corresponds to a K – as K is a unitless parameter (from 0-1) that describes the efficiency of wireless power transfer (i.e. what percentage of the transmitted field/flux is received at the receiver).
Yu does not expressly disclose “determining” K. K is inherently present in any wireless power system, but Yu does not expressly disclose knowing what K is. Weidner discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 6) that determines K in order to quantify the level of alignment between transmitter/receiver (par 52). Yu and Weidner are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with alignment determinations. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Yu to include a determination of K, as taught by Weidner. The motivation for doing so would have been to: a) quantify an inherent property of the Yu system; and/or b) give a numerical value to the level of alignment (instead of good/bad, it is a K value). Adding K does not change the underlying functionality of Yu. Instead of just using Yu’s alignment to control the voltage level, the combination would use an intermediate value (K) between the alignment and voltage control.
Yu is interpreted as obviously disclosing a processor and memory within the control circuit. Yu does not expressly disclose these components or the functionality of detect the presence of an object. Park I discloses a wireless power transmitter (fig 3-4 and 6; par 59-91, 103-111) comprising:
an inverter (121) that is operable to (i) receive, as input, a direct current (DC) voltage signal having a voltage level and a drive signal having an operating frequency, and (ii) produce an alternating current (AC) signal based on the DC voltage signal and the drive signal that are provided as input to the inverter;
a tuning circuit (fig 3, variable capacitor; fig 4, everything within 122 except for Lr) that is operable to (i) receive the AC signal that is produced by the inverter and (ii) tune the AC signal;
a transmission antenna (fig 3, unlabeled; fig 4, Lr) that is operable to produce a wireless power output in accordance with the AC signal that is produced by the inverter and tuned by the tuning circuit; and
at least one processor (par 68);
at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium (par 68); and
executable code stored on the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to:
detect a presence of an object (fig 6, step 610-620; par 104-105);
after detecting the presence of the object, carry out a first beaconing process for detecting a wireless power receiver (step 630; par 106);
based on the first beaconing process, detect that a valid modulated signal has been received (par 96-98) from a given wireless power receiver.
Park I discloses sending a beacon to detect an object and then sending pulses to determine if that object is a given receiver. Park I also compliments Yu by explicitly disclosing that the transmitter’s controller includes a processor and memory. Yu and Park I are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters.
At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Yu to include the detection of the valid modulated signal, as taught by Park I. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve power. By verifying the presence of a receiver, the combination would avoid transmitting power to an incompatible device.
At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Yu to include the processor/memory and the object detection, as taught by Park I. The motivation for the processor/memory would have been to “fill in the gaps” of the Yu disclosure and use known and proven control circuit components, with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Yu does not detail how to build the control circuit, the skilled artisan would have looked to the prior art to understand what components are successfully used to control the components of a wireless power transmitter. The motivation for the object detection would have been to conserve energy by only carrying out the successive pulses when an object is actually there to receive them.
Park I discloses detecting the presence of an object, but does not expressly disclose that it uses a quality factor change detection scheme. Park II discloses a wireless power transmitter with object detection that uses a Q factor change detection scheme (par 47). Park I and II are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters with object detection. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Park I objection detection to “use” the Q-factor scheme, as taught by Park II. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a known and proven method to detect approaching objects.
Park I discloses that the object is detected if the beacon signal is changed (par 105). The Q-factor is an inherent parameter in any wireless power transmission system that describes the ratio of energy stored to energy dissipated per cycle. If the beacon signal is changed (because an approaching receiver absorbs some of it), then the Q-factor would change as well. It is an equivalent parameter by which to measure electrical changes in the wireless power transmitter (to due the physical changes of an approaching receiver).
With respect to claim 2, Yu discloses the executable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to adjust the voltage level of the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter and thereby configure the wireless power transmitter to output wireless power at the discrete power level corresponding to (Weidner’s) K that was determined during the first beaconing process comprises executable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to:
cause the voltage level of the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter to be adjusted to a given percentage of a maximum voltage level of the DC voltage signal, wherein the given percentage of the maximum voltage level corresponds to the determined coupling coefficient K (Yu fig 7-8; par 32-33 as modified by Weidner par 52).
A good coupling/alignment (fig 8) results in the Yu control circuit adjusting the inverter input voltage (Vbus2) to be a “percentage” of the maximum (Vbus1). As discussed above “good coupling” can be quantified with a coupling coefficient value (that is different than a bad coupling/alignment).
With respect to claim 3, Yu discloses the wireless power transmitter further comprises a voltage regulator (“DC-DC converter”) that is operable to (i) receive a supply DC voltage signal from a power supply (Vs) and (ii) based on the supply DC voltage signal, produce the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter (the converter output is “based on” its input), and wherein the executable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to adjust the voltage level of the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter and thereby configure the wireless power transmitter to output wireless power at the discrete power level corresponding to the (Weidner) coupling coefficient (K) that was determining during the first beaconing process comprises executable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to:
cause the voltage regulator to adjust the voltage level of the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter (Yu figs 7-8 – at t1, the DC input voltage level is adjusted to be one of two discrete levels).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches executable code stored on the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the wireless power transmitter to:
after (Yu’s) adjusting the voltage level of the DC voltage signal that is provided as input to the inverter and thereby configuring the wireless power transmitter to output wireless power at the discrete power level, output a wireless power signal for receipt by the given wireless power receiver (Yu fig 7-8 after t1).
Yu configures the power level (by controlling the DC-DC converter) and then obviously actually outputs the resulting wireless power signal (after the power from the converter propagates through the inverter, filter and out of the antenna).
With respect to claims 13-15, Yu, Weidner, Park I and Park II combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1-3, respectively.
With respect to claims 19-20, Yu, Weidner, Park I and Park II combine to disclose a wireless power transmitter, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1-3. Claim 19 combines claims 1 and 3 and claim 20 correspond to claim 2. Claim 19 repeats all of the limitations of claim 1 and adds the voltage regulator (claim 3 – taught by Yu) and expands on the functionality of the beacon process. Yu also discloses that the first beaconing process detects a receiver by transmitting at least one beacon for receipt by a nearby wireless power receiver (see pulses in figs 7-8), wherein the at least one beacon elicits at least one response from a given wireless power receiver (par 25 – the “receiving load” and the “no receiving load” are the response – a current sink that can be sensed within the transmitter). Alternatively, Park discloses that the beacon (pings of step 630) elicit a response (step 640).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Weidner, Park I, Park II and Mi (US 2015/0015197).
Yu (par 23) and Park I (par 86) both disclose the inverter is a full-bridge, meaning it has four switches (i.e. it is “quadruple”). Yu does not expressly disclose the switches are FETs. Mi discloses a wireless power transmitter with a quadruple FET inverter (fig 1). Yu, with or without Park, and Mi are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitter inverters. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the full-bridge inverters of either Yu/Park to have FETs, as taught by Mi. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a commonly known inverter structure.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836