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 .
Applicant’s response of 7/31/2026 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1-4, 9 have been amended, claims 5-8, and 10 have been canceled, and claims 11-13 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 9, 11-13 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended language of independent claim(s) 1, 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is further noted that the applicant states that the amended language avoids invoking the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (Remarks, pg.5) but does not elaborate further. Claim 1 still recites the generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Therefore, the examiner believes the current language of claim 1 still invokes the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “obtaining unit” in claims 1 and 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a power receiving unit configured to wirelessly receiver power from a power transmission device” in claim 1.
“an obtaining unit configured to obtain…” in claim 1
“a communication unit configured to transmit…” in claim 1.
“the obtaining unit obtains…information indicating that there is no foreign object…” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly amended claim 1 recites “… an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from the power transmission device, a parameter indicating a coupling state between the power reception device and the power transmission device…” There is no written description support for “an obtaining unit”. While par [0411] of applicant’s disclosure states that the TX notifies the RX of the parameter, it does not indicate that the RX has “an obtaining unit” and/or a corresponding structure that obtains the notification. Accordingly, there is no written description support for “an obtaining unit”.
Claim 4 similarly recites “the obtaining unit obtains, from the power transmission device…” For the same reasons given for claim 1, there is no written description support in applicant’s disclosure for “the obtaining unit”.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…one or more processors configured to cause the power reception device to function as:” and then recites “a power receiving unit configured to wirelessly… an obtaining unit configured to obtain… a communication unit configured to transmit…” Claim 1 is indefinite because the scope of the claim is unclear. The original claim was directed to a power reception device with distinct structural units that were each configured to complete a function. This defined the metes and bounds of the power reception device. The current amendment appears to change the scope of the claim to “one or more processors” and how it/they are configured to cause the power reception device to have three different functions. This suggests a shift in claim scope (from the receiver structure to just the processor). But the remaining language of the claim appears to indicate that the units are still distinct structural elements (not names for functions). It appears that the Applicant is attempting to use each “unit” as name for a functional state of the reception device. However, each “unit” is defined by what it is “configured to do”-this is structural language. The claim does not recite that the processor is configured to cause the power reception device to “wirelessly receive power”, “obtain a parameter”, or “communicate/transmit a request”, which would be clear indications of the functionality caused by the processor.
It is unclear if the Applicant is seeking patent protection over a receiver with three units or a stand-alone processor(s) that has the potential to interact with a power reception device. Different readers could make different interpretations of the claim, thereby making it indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 1 is considered indefinite because the specification fails to adequately define structure that corresponds to “an obtaining unit”. For the corresponding disclosure to be adequate, language must be present in applicant’s disclosure in a way that one skilled in the art would understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function of “obtain, from the power transmission device, a parameter indicating a coupling state between the power reception device and the power transmission device”. Without a limiting specification, which is required by statute, the claim limitation becomes an unbounded purely functional limitation. There are no boundaries or limits imposed by structure, material or acts. The claim will cover all ways of performing a function, known and unknown. Therefore, such an unbounded limitation renders the claim indefinite. Under the interpretation that the “units” are distinct structural elements, the “obtaining unit” appears to be the same structural component as the “communication unit” (see fig 3, item 204). These are the same component and referring to them by two different names suggests the presence of additional structure that does not appear to be present in the disclosure. This also makes the claim indefinite. For purposes of interpretation, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11-13 are method claims, which require method steps to be recited. However, each claim recites a “wherein” clause instead of a step. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to recite method steps instead of wherein clauses. 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) 1-3, 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2021/0210983 A1) in view of Asanuma et al. (2017/0179772 A1) in view of Bae et al. (2013/0214612 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Lee (figs.4, 5A) teaches a power reception device comrpises one or more processors (322, par [84]) configured to cause the power reception device to function as:
a power receiving unit (items 321L and/or 327, par [83]) configured to wirelessly receive power from a power transmission device (302);
a communication unit (item 323b) configured to transmit (pars [77, 88]; Lee teaches communication unit 323b is configured to/capable of transmitting packets, information, or data to the power transmission device), to the power transmission device (302), a request for the power transmission device to detect a foreign object (pars [109-111, 116, 120] and related discussion; Lee teaches transmitting a “FOD request packet” 518 to the transmission device. The recitation of “for” is intended use and what the transmission device does with the request is not further limiting to the scope of how the reception device functions), based on a result of comparing a threshold value and a parameter value (pars [99, 110, 116] and related discussion; Lee teaches transmitting the request “based on” an abnormal state detected that includes the result of a comparison between a threshold value and a parameter value).
Lee teaches the request is transmitted based on a result of a comparison of a threshold value to a parameter value (an abnormal state detected). Lee does not explicitly disclose the comparison is of a threshold value and a value of a parameter indicating a coupling state between the power reception device and the power transmission device.
Asanuma, however, teaches it is known in the art for the comparison to be of a threshold value and a value of a parameter indicating a coupling state between the power reception device and the power transmission device (fig.7, pars [63, 82, 105, 107] and related discussion; Asanuma teaches a comparison between a parameter value indicating a coupling state in the coupling coefficient and a threshold and if the result is that the coupling coefficient does not exceed the threshold, it indicates an abnormal state).
In the combination, Lee’s comparison indicating an abnormal state would be replaced with Asanuma’s comparison of comparing a coupling coefficient/parameter indicating a coupling state with a threshold value and based on the result (i.e., the parameter of the coupling coefficient not exceeding a threshold value), an abnormal state is detected and the FOD request in Lee is transmitted to the power transmission device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lee to that of Asanuma. The motivation would have been because Lee already teaches the FOD request is transmitted based on a result of a comparison indicating an abnormal state being detected. One skilled in the art would have looked to Asanuma who discloses another well-known and well-desired comparison in the art, in particular a comparison of a coupling coefficient to a threshold, in which the result indicates an abnormal state being detected. Therefore, applying Asanuma’s comparison of a threshold value to a parameter value indicating a coupling state and its result to Lee’s system would trigger Lee’s FOD request using a standard, known technique.
The combination does not explicitly disclose to obtain, from the power transmission device, the parameter indicating the coupling state between the transmission device and the reception device.
Bae, however, teaches it is known in the art to obtain, from the power transmission device (200) the parameter indicating the coupling state between the power reception device and the power transmission device (pars [132-135]; Bae teaches obtaining the coupling coefficient/parameter indicating the coupling state from the power transmission device 200).
Therefore, because the combination of references teaches obtaining the parameter indicating a coupling state between the reception and transmission device from the transmission device, the combination would then obviously teach the corresponding “obtaining unit” that would obtain said parameter from the transmission device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Bae. The motivation would have been to retrieve the coupling coefficient in the combination by being shared from the transmission device instead of being received from the receiver. There are a finite number of ways to retrieve the coupling coefficient/parameter value- i.e., either by the transmission device sharing it to the receiver or to receive it from the receiver; when the transmitter shares the coupling coefficient with the receiver, less computation and/or measurement would be required by the receiver.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the coupling state corresponds to an electromagnetic coupling state between a coil of the power transmission device and a coil of the power reception device (Asanuma, pars [59, 63, 73, 105, 107], Bae, pars [132-133]; Asanuma teaches the coupling state corresponds to a state between a coil L1 of the power transmission device and coil L2 of the reception device. Bae similarly teaches the coupling state corresponds to the electromagnetic coupling state between coils of the transmitter and receiver).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the communication unit transmits the request to the power transmission device in a case where the value of the parameter is less than the threshold value (Lee, pars [109-111, 116, 120] and Asanuma, pars [82, 107]; Lee teaches transmitting the request to the power transmission device when an abnormal state is detected based on result of a comparison and Asanuma teaches the comparison of the parameter/coupling coefficient is less than the threshold indicates an abnormal state. Thus, Lee’s comparison is modified and replaced with Asanuma’s to detect an abnormal state and in response transmit the request).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps in claim 9 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 10 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 2 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 3 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2021/0210983 A1) in view of Asanuma et al. (2017/0179772 A1) in view of Bae et al. (2013/0214612 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view of Park (2023/0048919 A1) and Stingu et al. (2021/0257864 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose in a case where the obtaining unit obtains from the power transmission device, information that there is no foreign object after transmitting the request, the communication unit transmits, to the power transmission device, a request for the power transmission device to perform a calibration process.
Park (fig.17), however, teaches in a case where the obtaining unit obtains from the power transmission device, information that there is no foreign object after transmitting the request (pars [235-236]; Park teaches obtaining information from the transmitter 1001 read on by “ACK” that there is no foreign object after transmitting the request of receiver 1002), and the communication unit transmits, to the power transmission device, receiver packets to perform a calibration process (pars [238-239, 245-247]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Park. The motivation would have been to confirm that no foreign object is present and to establish an accurate baseline between transmitted and received power without foreign object losses affecting the calibration, thereby improving subsequent FOD measurements.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a request is communicated to the power transmission device to perform the calibration process in the combination of references.
Stingu, however, teaches it is known in the art to communicate a request to the power transmission device to perform a calibration process (pars [77-78]; an RP/3 packet may be sent from receiver to the transmitter to ask/request the transmitter to perform a power transfer calibration…).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination by employing the known receiver-to-transmitter RP calibration request in the combination of reference’s calibration process. The motivation would have been to permit the receiver to request initiation of the calibration/recalibration process disclosed by the combination of references. Such a modification would have merely combined known wireless- power protocol elements according to their known functions and would have yield predictable result of initiating the disclosed calibration/recalibration process in response to a receiver request.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/Menatoallah Youssef/SPE, Art Unit 2836
