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 § 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.
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.
Claims 5, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (KR 2021-0021246 A, of record and hereinafter “Baek”) in view of Liu et al. (WO 2017/219705 A1, of record and hereinafter “Liu”).
Claim 5: Baek discloses a power transmission system (Figs.1-3) comprising:
a power supply device (10); and
an electronic device (20);
wherein the power supply device comprises:
a protrusion (raised portion of 10; see annotated Figure) provided with a member (magnet 12) to which a predetermined feature is given (a magnetic field), the protrusion configured to restrict movement of the electronic device (see Figs.2 and 3, where the protrusion part of the power supply is provided between a cavity/groove of the electronic unit, thus restricting movement in a forward and sideways direction once docked; see also pg.2, last paragraph - pg.3, first paragraph: “the robot 20 surrounds at least a portion of the wireless power receiving unit and the second contact unit contacts the first contact unit 11 when the robot 20 is docked” and “in addition the first contact part 11 may be substantially the same as the area of the second contact part 21 … for stability”);
a power transmission circuit to supply power wirelessly to the electronic device (see pg.3, paragraph 7, which states that “In response to this, the robot 20 is provided with a wireless power receiver (not shown) arranged to charge a battery built in the robot by receiving wireless power transmitted from the wireless power transmitter.”),
wherein the electronic device comprises:
a battery (see pg.3, paragraphs 6-7, which disclose a “battery built into the robot”),
a power reception circuit configured to supply, to the battery, power wirelessly received from a power supply device (docking station 10; see pg.3, paragraph 7, which states that “In response to this, the robot 20 is provided with a wireless power receiver (not shown) arranged to charge a battery built in the robot by receiving wireless power transmitted from the wireless power transmitter.”); and
a sensor (22) configured to detect a predetermined feature (magnet 12; see pg.4, 5th paragraph: “That is, at least one magnet 12 is embedded in the first contact part 11, and the second contact part 21 has at least one Hall sensor that detects the presence of the magnet, that is, the magnitude of the magnetic force of the magnet. (22) is built-in, so it judges docking completion based on the detection result of this sensor.”) given to a predetermined part of the power supply device (magnet 12 provided in the docking station 10; see Figs.1-3),
wherein, in a state in which the electronic device is disposed in the power supply device, the sensor and the member to which the predetermined feature is given are positioned to face each other (see Figs.1-3, where 12 and 22 face each other when the robot is docked on the charger; see pg.4, 4th paragraph: “Preferably, the positions of the magnet 12 and the sensor 22 are preferably arranged to substantially correspond to each other upon completion of the docking”),
wherein the power reception circuit is further configured to, in response to the sensor detecting the predetermined feature from the predetermined part, operate the power reception circuit to allow power to be supplied from the power supply device to the battery (see pg.4, 5th-6th paragraphs: “That is, at least one magnet 12 is embedded in the first contact part 11, and the second contact part 21 has at least one Hall sensor that detects the presence of the magnet, that is, the magnitude of the magnetic force of the magnet. (22) is built-in, so it judges docking completion based on the detection result of this sensor. … When docking is completed normally, charging starts, and the robot can perform a certain operation even during charging”; see also pg.8, 1st paragraph: “At this time, a magnet is embedded in the first contact part that surrounds at least part of the wireless power transmission part and contacts when the robot docks over the docking station for wireless charging. In addition, a sensor that detects the presence of a magnet is embedded in the second contact part that is in contact with the first contact part when the robot is docked over the docking station for wireless charging and surrounding at least a part of the wireless power receiving part built into the robot. , Based on the detection result of this sensor, it is determined that docking is complete”, which implies beginning the wireless power charging based upon the detection of the magnetic via the magnetic sensor).
PNG
media_image1.png
864
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
425
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baek does not explicitly disclose the particular details of the wireless transmitter and receiver, thus does not explicitly disclose “a power reception coil” and where the power reception circuit receives power “through the power reception coil” of claims 1 and 5 or the “power transmission coil” of claim 5. Liu discloses that in a similar wireless charging system for a robot and docking station, electromagnetic induction type and magnetic field resonance may be implemented as the wireless charging type (see [0079]-[0080]). Liu discloses that in implementing inductive/magnetic resonance power transfer, power is provided from a power supply (14) through a power transmission coil (discharging coil 15) is provided within the power transmitter/docking station (10) and a power management system and charging interface (21, 24) provide power to a battery (3) via a power reception coil (charging coil 25) that is provided within the bottom of the robot (see [0072], [0080], [0083], and [0102]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the inductive/magnetic resonance wireless charging structure of Liu as suitable in achieving the wireless power transfer broadly disclosed by Baek. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the specific wireless charging circuit of Liu including a power supply and power transmission coil and corresponding power management system, charging interface, and power reception coil, as a suitable wireless power charging system as broadly disclosed by Baek.
Claim 6: Baek discloses the sensor comprises a magnetic sensor (magnet 12; see pg.4, 5th paragraph: “That is, at least one magnet 12 is embedded in the first contact part 11, and the second contact part 21 has at least one Hall sensor that detects the presence of the magnet, that is, the magnitude of the magnetic force of the magnet. (22) is built-in, so it judges docking completion based on the detection result of this sensor.”) to detect magnetism generated by a magnet (12) provided in the predetermined part (see Figs.1-3 and discussion above), wherein in response to the magnetic sensor detecting the magnetism, the power reception circuit operates to allow power to be supplied from the power supply device to the battery (see pg.4, 5th-6th paragraphs: “That is, at least one magnet 12 is embedded in the first contact part 11, and the second contact part 21 has at least one Hall sensor that detects the presence of the magnet, that is, the magnitude of the magnetic force of the magnet. (22) is built-in, so it judges docking completion based on the detection result of this sensor. … When docking is completed normally, charging starts, and the robot can perform a certain operation even during charging”; see also pg.8, 1st paragraph: “At this time, a magnet is embedded in the first contact part that surrounds at least part of the wireless power transmission part and contacts when the robot docks over the docking station for wireless charging. In addition, a sensor that detects the presence of a magnet is embedded in the second contact part that is in contact with the first contact part when the robot is docked over the docking station for wireless charging and surrounding at least a part of the wireless power receiving part built into the robot. , Based on the detection result of this sensor, it is determined that docking is complete”, which implies beginning the wireless power charging based upon the detection of the magnetic via the magnetic sensor).
Claim 9: Baek discloses in the state in which the electronic device is disposed in the power supply device, the sensor and the member to which the predetermined feature is given are positioned to at least partially overlap each other when viewed in cross section from a first direction (see Figs.1-3, where 12 and 22 face each other when the robot is docked on the charger; see pg.4, 4th paragraph: “Preferably, the positions of the magnet 12 and the sensor 22 are preferably arranged to substantially correspond to each other upon completion of the docking”).
Claim 10: Baek discloses wherein, in the state in which the electronic device is disposed in the power supply device, the power reception coil and the power transmission coil are positioned to at least partially overlap each other when viewed in cross section from a second direction orthogonal to a first direction (see Figs.1 and 2, where 11 and 21 overlap each other when 10 is docked).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Liu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kojima (US 2009/0015210, of record).
Baek and Liu disclose the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and further disclose a power reception circuit (21 of Liu) including an operation control terminal (inputs to 21 of Liu). The combination does not explicitly disclose that the power reception circuit is “integrated” or “wherein the power reception IC operates when a first voltage is applied to the operation control terminal and stops operating when a second voltage is applied to the operation control terminal, and the magnetic sensor applies the first voltage to the operation control terminal when detecting the magnetism, and applies a second voltage to the operation control terminal when not detecting the magnetism”.
Regarding the first difference, Kojima discloses integrating a similar control circuit (2; see [0041]). Providing a control circuit in the form of an integrated circuit is known in the art to provide ease of manufacture, reduced costs, and reduced physical size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the power reception circuit (21 of Liu) in the form of an integrated circuit in order to have provided ease of manufacture, reduced costs, and reduced physical size.
Regarding the second difference, Kojima discloses that a detection circuit (3, shown in Fig.5) as providing a voltage of two different voltages corresponding to detection of a magnet (e.g. the output of Q7 provided to the input of digital logic U5). Kojima discloses that such a circuit is suitable for providing a detection signal to a control circuit (see [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the magnet detection circuitry of Kojima as the corresponding circuitry disclosed by Baek in order to have provided a suitable detection circuit for providing a signal to a power reception control circuit.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (CA-2761913-A1, of record and hereinafter “Jung”).
The combination of Baek of Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, the combination only discloses utilizing a magnet and magnet sensor as the “predetermined part” and does not disclose as the sensor, a color sensor to detect color of the predetermined part, wherein in response to the color sensor detecting a predetermined color as the color of the predetermined part, the power reception circuit operates to allow power to be supplied from the power supply device to the battery. Jung discloses that a color marking and a color detection sensor may alternatively be used in order to detect when a mobile charging device is in a charging position (see pg.20, 23-25). As both means, a color marking and corresponding color detection sensor versus a magnet and a magnet detection sensor, both accomplish the same result of detecting a position of a charging device on a wireless charger, the results of substituting one with the other would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the color marking and color detection sensor in substitute of the magnet and magnet sensor of Baek and Liu as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Liu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (CN 116634913 A, hereinafter “Brown”).
Baek and Liu disclose the limitations of claim 5, but do not explicitly disclose “wherein the power supply device includes storage for storing the electronic device, and wherein the protrusion is configured to restrict movement of the electronic device in the storage. Brown discloses that for a similar robotic device, the power supply device may include a housing for storing the robotic device (see Fig.16, where 60W is stored within 220). Brown discloses that such a docking statin may be useful in providing robot storage and accessory storage (see pg.19, 2nd paragraph). Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of a “storage” over a mere charging surface is one of mere aesthetics (the examiner notes [0011] of the instant specification, which describes the “storage” as having a shape that imitates a small animal’s house, thus of aesthetic nature). It has previously been held that “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish from the prior art”. See MPEP 2144.04.I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the power supply of Baek with walls and a roof surface, thus a storage compartment for housing the robot while charging, in order to have provided robot storage, accessory storage and/or a mere aesthetic design with no mechanical function.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendment filed 8/11/2026, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Amano in view of Kojima has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Baek “fails to disclose that the wireless charging docking station is provided with a protrusion for restricting movement of the robot” and “the magnet .. provided on the protrusion”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As is shown in Figs.1-3 of Baek, a central protrusion providing both 11 and 12 is provided on the surface of 10, which accepts the corresponding groove on device 20, thus allowing restriction of movement in the forward and side directions once docked. See the annotated figures and discussion above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ryan Johnson whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights