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 .
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.
Claim 20 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.
The claim recites wherein the controller is adapted to calculate the feedback information from the plurality of voltage values of voltages measured at different locations in the power-receiving device and at different timings, and send the feedback information to the power-transmitting device.
. However, the is no support in the spec for the newly added limitation. The applicant is encouraged to disclose the paragraph and/or the column showing the support for the newly added limitation.
Claim limitation “2” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recitation of the first and second elements provides insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function For example, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim and no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.03.h, 7.30.03, and 7.30.05 (to set forth the claim interpretation and statutory basis for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), and then 7.30.02 or 7.103 and 7.34.01 (to set forth the statutory basis for the indefiniteness rejection and identify the claim at issue) and 7.30.06, if appropriate (invoked despite the absence of means).
4. When a rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description should also be considered. See MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0113689) in view of Davlantes et al (US 2016/0094092)
Re Claim 1; Lee discloses a wireless power supply system configured to operate a power-receiving device (250), comprising:
a power-receiving antenna (251) adapted to receive microwaves in a varying manner according to a power-receiving environment, the microwaves are transmitted from a power- transmitting device (200) according to a wireless power supply system configured to operate at a frequency at 6.78MHz; (Par 0058, 77 transmit electromagnetic wave. Electromagnetic (EM) waves are considered both radio frequency (RF) and microwaves, as both are part of the same non-ionizing, low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. the resonant frequency is determined as 6.78 MHz) and
a controller (252,253) adapted to send feedback information, which is calculated from a plurality of voltage values of voltages measured at different timings, in which the voltages were generated based on the microwaves received in the varying manner according to the power-receiving environment. (Claim 13 and 14, Fig. 18, 12)
Lee does not disclose a frequency greater than or equal to 900 MH, a power-transmitting device adapted to transmit microwave and wherein the power transmitting device is adapted to receive feedback information from the power-receiving device and control a transmission direction of the microwave based on feedback information.
However, Davlantes discloses a power-transmitting device (100) adapted to transmit microwaves a frequency greater than or equal to 900 MH, a power-transmitting device adapted to transmit microwave (par 0028) and wherein the power transmitting device is adapted to receive the feedback information from the power-receiving device and control a transmission direction of the microwave based on the feedback information. (Par 0029).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to have a frequency greater than or equal to 900 MHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and also to transmit power further.
Re Claim 2; Lee discloses further comprising: a rectifier (254) adapted to convert the microwaves received by the power-receiving antenna into DC voltages;
a first element (255) functionally connected to the rectifier (254) and provided on a downstream side of the rectifier and on the upstream side of the switch; and
a second element (257) functionally connected to the rectifier via a switch (256) and provided on a downstream side of the switch and on an upstream side of a charger and a battery;
wherein the plurality of voltage values include both a voltage value of the first element and a voltage value of the second element and
wherein the controller is adapted to send the feedback information calculated from the plurality of volage values using both the voltage value of the first element and the voltage value of the second element. (Fig. 3, 12, the feedback information is based on the entire circuitry within the receiver which does include both the first and second element since they are both power consuming devices)
Re Claim 3; Lee discloses wherein the controller is adapted to calculate the feedback information includes information which is calculated based on a time needed to reach a threshold voltage value. (Par 0142)
Re Claim 4; Lee discloses further comprising: a rectifier adapted to convert the microwaves received by the power-receiving antenna into DC voltages; and a power storage device each of which is functionally connected to the rectifier via a switch; wherein the controller is adapted to selectively supply power to the power storage device and the sensor by use of the switch, thereby suppressing impedance mismatch between a side of the rectifier and a side of the load.(See the rejection above)
Lee further discloses in Par 0097 The wireless power receiver 450 may detect occurrence of errors. But does not disclose a sensor, each of which is functionally connected to the rectifier via a switch
However, connecting a sensor to a switch is would have been obvious motivated by the desire to provide information to the transmitter to provide power effectively.
Re Claims 5 and 7; Lee discloses the switching unit 256 may connect the DC/DC converter 255 to the load unit 257. The switching unit 256 may maintain its on/off state under control of the controller 252. The load unit 257 may store the converted power received from the DC/DC converter 255, if the switching unit 256 is turned on. (Par 0081)
The wireless power transmitter 100 may include a display means such as a display, and may display a state of each of the wireless power receivers 110-1, 110-2 and 110-n based on the message received from each of the wireless power receivers 110-1, 110-2 and 110-n. (Par 0053)
comprising a rectifier adapted to convert the microwaves received by the power-receiving antenna into DC voltages, the rectifier being functionally connected to a load via a switch,
wherein the controller is adapted to turn on the switch to enable confirmation of the power-receiving condition. (Fig. 3)
Lee does not disclose wherein the power-receiving device outputs information for displaying a power-receiving condition and light- emitting diode.
However, it would have been obvious to have add an LED as an indication of power to the load in order to display the status of power being received by the load.
Re Claim 6; Lee discloses The PRU dynamic signal transmitted by the wireless power receiver 450 may include information about at least one of voltage, current, PRU state and temperature. The state of the wireless power receiver 450 is set as an `On` state in step S421. (Par 091)
Lee does not disclose to a light-emitting diode.
However, it would have been obvious to have used an LED as an indication of power since its functional equivalent as a display.
Re Claim 8; Lee discloses wherein the feedback information is related to a power receiving condition that is observed based on the voltage values and a time required to reach from one of the voltage values to another one of the voltage values. (Fig. 12, Par 0142-7)
Re Claim 9; Lee discloses wherein the feedback information is related to an amount of change in voltage values over a measured period of time. (Fig. 12, Par 0142-7)
Re Claim 10; Lee wherein the feedback information calculated from the plurality of voltage values measured at different timings represents a power-receiving strength of the microwaves received in the varying manner by the power-receiving antenna according to the power-receiving environment. (Fig. 12, Par 0142-7)
Re Claim 11; Lee discloses wherein the feedback information calculated from the plurality of voltage values measured at different timings is used to optimize the wireless power supply system. (Fig. 12, Par 0142-7)
Re Claim 12; Lee discloses wherein the feedback information calculated from the plurality of voltage values measured at different timings is used to change a transmission direction of the microwaves. (Fig. 12, Par 0142-7)
Re Claim 13; Lee discloses wherein the power-receiving antenna is configured to be mounted on a movable device. (Par 0049)
Re Claim 14; Lee discloses wherein the plurality of voltage values include voltage values measured from at least two different locations in the power- receiving device.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0113689) in view of Davlantes and further in view of Stanzione at al. (US 2024/0178705)
Re Claim 15; Lee discloses wherein the plurality of voltage values.
Lee does not disclose include voltage values measured from at least a first location between the power receiving antenna and a first side of a switch of the power receiving device and from a second location closer to an opposite side of the switch than the first side of the switch.
However, Stanzione discloses wherein the plurality of voltage values include voltage values measured from at least a first location between the power receiving antenna and a first side of a switch (closer to the capacitor) of the power receiving device and from a second location closer (closer to the dc-dc converter) to an opposite side of the switch than the first side of the switch. (Fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have measured the voltage at multiple places in order ascertain accurate voltage information of the switch so that power is provided effectively.
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0113689) in view of Davlantes and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0155878)
Re Claims 16-18; Lee discloses a switch.
Lee does not disclose wherein the switch is a low dropout (LDO) regulator.
However, Park discloses wherein the switch is a low dropout (LDO) regulator. (Par 0093)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have the switch be LDO in order to adjusts the gate voltage of the charging switch so that the battery voltage VBAT may be controlled to a constant voltage.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0113689) in view of Davlantes and further in view of Stanzione and Park
Re Claims 19; Lee discloses a switch.
Lee does not disclose wherein the switch is a low dropout (LDO) regulator.
However, Park discloses wherein the switch is a low dropout (LDO) regulator. (Par 0093)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have the switch be LDO in order to adjusts the gate voltage of the charging switch so that the battery voltage VBAT may be controlled to a constant voltage.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0113689) in view of Davlantes et al (US 2016/0094092) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20230143950)
Re Claim 20; Lee discloses a feedback system with a controller.
Lee does not disclose wherein the controller is adapted to calculate the feedback information from the plurality of voltage values of voltages measured at different locations in the power-receiving device and at different timings, and send the feedback information to the power-transmitting device.
Choi discloses wherein the controller is adapted to calculate the feedback information from the plurality of voltage values of voltages measured at different locations in the power-receiving device and at different timings, and send the feedback information to the power-transmitting device. (Par 0112)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added the feedback information based on the voltage and location in order to adequately provide power to the receiver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Davlantes
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
08/25/2056
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights