The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-4, 9 in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 5-8, and 10 have been herein withdrawn.
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 receive power…” in claim 1.
“a communication unit configured to transmit…” in claim 1
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Muurinen (2015/0097442 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Muurinen teaches a power reception device comprising:
a power receiving unit (item 330, par [46]) configured to wirelessly receive power from a power transmission device (par [46]; receiver 330 is a means for receiving wireless power form a power transmission device); and
a communication unit (332, par [46]) configured to transmit, based on a coupling state index (Examiner notes that “coupling state index” is not a known term in the art and does not add a particular structure to the reception device. While each individual term “coupling”, “state”, “index” are known terms in the art, however, collectively, the combination “coupling state index” appears to broaden each individual meaning. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, an indication of an electromagnetic coupling state reads on “coupling state index”), a request for change in power transfer control to the power transmission device after a start of a power transfer phase (pars [60, 65, 67, 68, 70-76, 80-85]; Muurinen teaches in par [60] that the digital ping response gives information about the “degree of coupling” between the wireless transmitter and receiver, which corresponds to “based on a coupling state index”, because it indicates an electromagnetic coupling state. Further, configuration of power transfer parameters, information on transmitted power, etc. in 601, 616-620 reflect the electromagnetic coupling state between the transmitter and receiver and corresponds to the “coupling state index”. Muurinen teaches transmitting a request for change in power transfer control, for e.g., an “end power transfer” request after a start of a power transfer phase. This request is “based on” a coupling state index, such as the degree of coupling indicated in the digital response signal and signals 601, 616-620).
Examiner Note: The claim broadly recites “based on a coupling state index”, which does not further structurally distinguish the reception device. Further, as currently presented, the “coupling state index” is nominally recited and is not defined to have any actual patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 2,
Muurinen teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the coupling sate index indicates an electromagnetic coupling state between a coil (302) of the power transmission device and a coil (322) of the power reception device (pars [60, 65, 67, 74, 80-85]; Muurinen teaches the coupling state index indicates an electromagnetic coupling state read on by the degree of coupling between the transmitter coil and receiver coil as well as communication/configuration of power transfer parameters).
Regarding Claim 3,
Muurinen teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the communication unit receives information on the coupling state index from the power transmission device (pars [70-76, 80-86] and related discussion; the receiver communication unit receives information including, inter alia, item 633 on the coupling state index from the transmitter noting that transmitted power varies as a function of electromagnetic coupling between coils-thus, the information on the transmitted power is information on the coupling state index).
Regarding Claim 4,
Muurinen teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the request for change in power transfer control is a request for stopping power transfer (pars [65, 67, 74] and related discussion; Muurinen teaches request for stopping power transfer “end power transfer request”/request wireless power transmitter to cease providing a magnetic flux…).
Regarding Claim 9,
Muurinen teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps in claim 9 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muurinen (2015/0097442 A1) in view of Bae (2013/0214612 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Muurinen teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and teaches the communication unit transmits information on the coupling state index to the power transmission device (pars [60, 68, 70-76, 80-85]; Muurinen teaches transmitting information about the “degree of coupling” between the wireless transmitter and receiver, which corresponds to information on the coupling state index).
While Murrinen teaches the communication unit receives information from the power transmission device (see pars [70-75] and related discussion), and suggests the received information is on the coupling state index (pars [70-75, 80-86]; for e.g., item 633 is information on the transmitted power, which obviously corresponds to information on the coupling state index since transmitted power varies as a function of electromagnetic coupling between coils), Muurinen does not explicitly state receives information on the coupling state index from the transmission device.
Bae, however, teaches it is known in the art for the receiver to receive information on the coupling state index from the transmission device (pars [132-133, 135]; receives information on the coupling state index read on by the coupling coefficient from the transmission device 200).
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 Muurinen to that of Bae. The motivation would have been because both systems already involve transmitter to receiver communication and adding another transmitted information (i.e., the coupling coefficient) on the coupling state index is well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art in that it provides more information regarding the transmitter-receiver coupling, which enhances the overall system control and efficiency.
Prior Art Deemed Relevant but Not Currently Relied Upon:
Kume et al. (2017/0368946 A1): pars [17, 67, 74, 76, 80, 81, 83]; Kume teaches measuring a coupling coefficient between the transmitter coil and the receiver coil, which corresponds to “based on a coupling state index”, because it indicates an electromagnetic coupling state. Communication unit 33 transmits a request for change in power transfer control, for e.g., stop power transfer from the power transmission device T, after a start of power transfer S105. This request is “based on” a coupling state index/change in the coupling coefficient.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836