DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/10/25, 03/21/25 and 10/15/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0001] of the originally filed specification, reference to parent case 18/300,075 should be updated so as to reflect the fact that this application has now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,255,466.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 9 of claim 1, the word --and-- should be inserted after the semicolon.
On line 10 of claim 1, a colon should be inserted at the end of the line after the word "to".
On line 14 of claim 1, it appears that the word "receiver" should be changed to
--receive--.
On the second line of claim 2, the word --and-- should be inserted before "wherein".
On the first line of claim 6, a colon should be inserted at the end of the line after the word "to".
On the first line of claim 8, a colon should be inserted at the end of the line after the word "to".
On line 10 of claim 11, a colon should be inserted at the end of the line after the word "to".
On the penultimate line of claim 11, it appears that the word "receiver" should again be changed to --receive--.
On the second line of claim 12, the word --and-- should be inserted before "wherein".
On the first line of claim 16, a colon should be inserted at the end of the line after the word "to".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
5. 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
On line 6 of claim 1, "the electrical components within the appliance housing" lacks antecedent basis.
On line 13 of claim 1, "the power receiver device" lacks antecedent basis.
On line 14 of claim 1, "the receiver control unit" lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 1.
On line 13 of claim 11, "the power receiver device" lacks antecedent basis.
On line 14 of claim 11, "the receiver control unit" lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 12-15 are indefinite in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 11.
On the first line of claim 16, it appears that "1" should be changed to --11--, i.e., claim 16 recites an electrical device, not an electrical appliance.
Claims 17 and 18 are indefinite in view of their dependencies on indefinite claims 11 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne et al (USP 9,484,751) in view of Sogabe et al (USP 8,369,905).
As to claim 1, Byrne et al discloses, in figure 2A,
an electrical appliance (the claimed electrical appliance can be read on the combination of components 14, 16, 18 and 46 shown in Byrne et al's figure 2A) configured to be coupled in a power transfer relationship with a power transmitter device (the claimed power transmitter device can be read on power transmitter device 12 shown in Byrne et al's figure 2A), the electrical appliance comprising:
an appliance housing (the claimed appliance housing can be read on the housing of component 14, the housing of component 18 or the housing of component 46);
a power receiver housing (the claimed power receiver housing can be read on the housing of component 16) coupled to the appliance housing using a wiring device (the claimed wiring device can be read on wiring device 44 or wiring device 48, or the combination of these two wiring devices) configured to transfer electrical power between the power receiver housing and the appliance housing to power the electrical components within the appliance housing (indefinite, as noted above);
a receiver coil within the power receiver housing (although not disclosed by Byrne et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that component 16, which is disclosed as being a receiver device, will typically include a receiver coil) configured to inductively receive power from a transmitter coil (although not disclosed by Byrne et al, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that component 12, which is disclosed as being a transmitter device, will typically include a transmitter coil);
a power conversion unit coupled to the receiver coil (note column 6, line 3-7, and also column 6, lines 19-28, of Byrne et al wherein this reference discloses power conversion circuitry for use in the electrical appliance shown in figure 2A, and note that such power conversion circuitry will inherently or obviously be coupled to the above-noted receiver coil within receiver device 16); and
a receiver electronic processor coupled to the power conversion unit and configured to:
establish a connection with the power transmitter device,
negotiate power transfer requirements between the power transmitter device and the power receiver device using the connection, and
control the receiver control unit to receive power based on the negotiated power transfer requirements (although Byrne et al does not disclose the claimed receiver electronic processor configured to perform the establishing, negotiating and controlling functions recited on the last five lines of claim 1, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art to use a receiver electronic processor in a power receiving device for performing such establishing, negotiating and controlling functions, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Sogabe et al, note columns 9-12 of this reference, and note further that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a receiver electronic processor in the receiver device 16 of Sogabe et al for the obvious purpose of automatically controlling the inductive power transfer between transmitter device 12 and receiver device 16).
As to claim 5, although Byrne et al does not disclose a magnet provided at a center of the above-noted receiver coil within receiver device 16, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to include such a magnet at the center of a receiver coil used in inductive power transfer, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner. The same is true for the limitations of claims 6, 8 and 10, i.e., it was also old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention that a power conversion unit is typically used for converting an alternating current induced in a receiver coil to a direct current (as per claim 6), for converting an alternating current induced in a receiver coil to an output power (as per claim 8), and that an alternating current is typically a single phase alternating current which can obviously be converted to output power by converting the single phase alternating current to three-phase alternating current (as per claim 10).
As to claims 7 and 9, the claimed load can be read on either battery 46 or outlet unit 18.
As to claims 11 and 15-18, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 5-10 (the claimed outlet housing recited on line 3 of claim 11 can be read on the housing of outlet unit 18 shown in figure 2A of Byrne et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2-4 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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: none of the prior art of record, including Byrne et al and Sogabe et al, supra, discloses or suggests that the power receiver housing includes a raised portion and the receiver coil is provided in the raised portion, as recited in claims 2 and 12. Claims 3 and 4 are allowable in view of their dependencies on allowable claim 2, and claims 13 and 14 are allowable in view of their dependencies on allowable claim 12.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 2 of Yang et al (USPAP 2016/0134127) and figure 1 of Itkonen disclose two further examples of inductive power transfer between a power transmitting device disposed in the surface of a floor and a power receiving device disposed in an appliance which is placed on the floor directly above the power transmitting device. Note that in each of these two further references, the disclosed electrical appliance will inherently include an appliance housing, a power receiver housing, a wiring device, receiver and transmitter coils, and a power conversion unit, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a receiver electronic processor within the receiver device for performing the claimed establishing, negotiating, and controlling functions recited on the last five lines of claims 1 and 11, using the same reasoning as set forth above in the rejection based on Byrne et al in view of Sogabe et al, i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a receiver electronic processor in the receiver device 16 of Sogabe et al for the obvious purpose of automatically controlling the inductive power transfer between the transmitter device and the receiver device).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, Regis Betsch, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights