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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is acknowledged that the certified copy has been filed in English.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 5, the claim should be amended to prevent potential antecedent basis issues with the elements already introduced in intervening claim 4 (i.e. the first and second series reactance components are already introduced in claim 4). Applicant is also generally cautioned to ensure recitation of the intended series and parallel connections in claims 4-5 do not cause confusion and reflect the intended circuit, since at present the claim does not actually clearly specify which components are in series relative to other components, which components are parallel relative to other components, and any other electrical connection requirements.
Re claims 9-10, the claims should be amended to avoid potential antecedent basis issues and confusion with multiple introduction of “a load” and optional rectifier. Assuming the load is meant to always be required and the rectifier connection optional, the claims may recite: “a second tuning circuit coupled to a load, ” since the further rectifier is introduced in dependent claims 16 and 18 for example.
Re claims 11, 13, 15, 17 the claims should be amended: “…and [[an]] the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim…” to consistently refer to the previous claim element.
Re claims 12, 14, 16, 18, the claims should be amended: “…further comprising a rectifier for providing DC output power to [[a]] the load” since the load is already introduced. If a different load is intended then the claim should use a different element name instead. Note also the objection of claims 9-10 above regarding the optional rectifier, and the claims should be ensured to avoid repeated introduction as appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8, 13-14 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.
Re claim 8 (and claims dependent thereon), the scope of the claim is indefinite because the meaning and bounds of the limitation: “an inductive power input circuit with a topology that can be modelled as a constant current source in series with a variable reactance component” cannot be clearly determined. As drafted, the claim fails to clearly define the structure of the inductive power input circuit, and only vaguely describes its general capability of being modeled, without providing any concrete details of the structure of the circuit nor the manner/conditions for modeling that would allow one of ordinary skill to judge the intended scope of the circuit. An examination of Applicant’s disclosure appears to suggest the claim may be intended to be related to the circuit analysis shown in Fig. 6 derived off of the embodiment of Fig. 5, but given that it does not appear to be an actual embodiment of the apparatus within Applicant’s possession, it would be inappropriate to attempt to vaguely claim potential circuit arrangements that could be derived without clearly limiting the bounds of such embodiments. Additionally, it is further noted that the claim phrasing does not actually positively recite that the inductive power input circuit actually comprises a variable reactance component, since it recites only that it may be “modelled” to have one, and thus further limitations referring to the variable reactance component would likewise be potentially indefinite. Applicant is also cautioned that attempting to claim embodiments in this manner without the Specification/Drawings actually providing reasonable disclosure of concrete embodiments within Applicant’s possession matching the scope of the claim would also potentially raise issues under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to provide adequate Written Description support for claimed embodiments. It is therefore recommended that Applicant cancel claims 8, 13-14, since they do not appear to be an appropriate means to clearly claim the details of Applicant’s supported embodiments, and since claims to the actual circuit arrangement of Applicant’s supported embodiments are already provided in other claims (note also the cited prior art, which would also make it essentially impossible for a claim structured in this manner to clearly overcome the prior art). For purposes of examination, claim 8 is understood as only requiring broadly “an input power input circuit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-8, 10-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeBaun (US2017/0222484).
Re claim 1. DeBaun teaches an inductive power transfer receiver (receiver <110>, see DeBaun: Fig. 1B) comprising
an inductive power input circuit (receiver impedance matching network/IMN <126>, see DeBaun: [0095], [0097], Fig. 1B) comprising:
a tuning circuit (reactances <X1>, <X3>) with a receiver coil (receiver resonator coil <108R>, see DeBaun: [0097], [0103-0105], Fig. 1B), and
a power control circuit (tunable reactances <X2> and optionally further <X1>, <X3>, see DeBaun: [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding receiver IMN <126> controlling power efficiency/power through and output from the IMN) for controlling output power, and
a controller (Rx controller <129>, see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding control of IMN <126>) configured to control the power control circuit,
wherein the power control circuit comprises at least one variable reactance component (variable reactances <X1-X3>, see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], regarding all reactances able to be tunable/variable, and control of IMN <126> tuning to control power efficiency/power provided to load device) that can be varied to control the output power provided to a load (load device <112>). See DeBaun: [0095-0097], [0100-0105], [0116], Figs. 1B. Note that a large number of prior art references may similarly anticipate the broadly recited claim, such as those cited on record.
Re claim 2. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1, wherein the output power comprises a power magnitude and a power factor (see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding control of IMN <126> affecting output power/power efficiency, i.e. influencing the magnitude of power; note that any power transmission inherently has a power factor per definition of the term, that would also generally be affected by variation of the IMN), and controlling the output power comprises controlling at least one of the power magnitude and/or the power factor.
Re claim 3. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1, wherein the power control circuit comprises at least a first reactance component (<X2>, see DeBaun: [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B; see discussion of claim 2 regarding ability to control power magnitude and power factor) in parallel with the receiver coil for controlling power magnitude.
Re claim 4. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1, wherein the power control circuit comprises at least a first and at least a second series reactance component (<X1> and <X2>, respectively; see DeBaun: [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding components in series with each other, and also generally parallel to the receiver coil; see discussion of claim 2 regarding ability to control power magnitude and power factor) in parallel with the receiver coil for controlling at least one of power magnitude and power factor.
Re claim 5. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 4, wherein the power control circuit comprises a first and second and third series reactance component (<X1>, <X3>, and <X2>, respectively; see DeBaun: [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding components general in series with another component, and also the overall IMN <126> generally parallel to the receiver coil; see discussion of claim 2 regarding ability of IMN to control power magnitude and power factor) in parallel with the receiver coil, the first and second reactance components for controlling the power factor and the third reactance component for controlling the power magnitude.
Re claim 6. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1, wherein the power control circuit (<X1-X3>) forms part of the tuning circuit (<X1>, <X3>; see DeBaun: [0103-0105], Fig. 1B).
Re claim 7. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1, wherein the turning tuning circuit comprises a first tuning sub-circuit (<X1>) and a second tuning sub-circuit (<X3>) and the power control circuit (<X2>) is between the first and second tuning subcircuits (see DeBaun: [0103-0105], Fig. 1B).
Re claim 8. As best understood, DeBaun teaches an inductive power transfer receiver (receiver <110>, see DeBaun: Fig. 1B) comprising: an inductive power input circuit (receiver impedance matching network/IMN <126>, see DeBaun: [0095], [0097], [0103-0105], Fig. 1B) with a topology that can be modelled as a constant current source in series with a variable reactance component, wherein the variable reactance component can be varied to control the output power provided to a load (see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) regarding indefinite limitation and current interpretation of the claim; note also that DeBaun generally discloses a receiver circuit with variable reactances, that could subsequently be potentially modeled per standard electrical circuit analysis techniques).
Re claim 10. DeBaun teaches an inductive power transfer receiver (receiver <110>, see DeBaun: Fig. 1B) comprising an
inductive power input circuit (receiver impedance matching network/IMN <126>, see DeBaun: [0095], [0097], Fig. 1B) comprising:
a first tuning circuit (reactance <X1>) with a receiver coil (receiver resonator coil <108R>, see DeBaun: [0097], [0103-0105], Fig. 1B),
a second tuning circuit (reactance <X3>) coupled to
a load (load device <112>), or
a rectifier (rectifier <128>) coupled to a load (load device <112>, see DeBaun: [0097], Fig. 1B),
a power control circuit (tunable reactances <X2>, see DeBaun: [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding receiver IMN <126> controlling power efficiency/power through and output from the IMN) for controlling output power coupled between the first and second turning circuit, and
a controller (Rx controller <129>, see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding control of IMN <126>) configured to control the power control circuit,
wherein the power control circuit comprises at least one variable reactance component (variable reactance <X2>, see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], regarding all reactances able to be tunable/variable, and control of IMN <126> tuning to control power efficiency/power provided to load device) across the coupling between the first and second tuning circuits that can be varied to control the output power provided to the load. See DeBaun: [0095-0097], [0100-0105], [0116], Figs. 1B.
Re claim 11. DeBaun teaches an inductive power transfer system (system <100>) comprising an inductive power transfer transmitter (transmitter power and control circuitry <106>) and an inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1 (see DeBaun: [0093-0095], Fig. 1B and discussion of claim 1 above).
Re claim 12. DeBaun teaches the inductive power transfer receiver according to claim 1, further comprising a rectifier (rectifier <128>, see DeBaun: [0097], Fig. 1B) for providing DC output power to a load (load device <128>).
Re claims 13-14, 17-18, the further recited limitations essentially correspond to the limitations recited in claims 11-12, respectively, and are therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied above.
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) 9, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeBaun in view of Kesler (US2010/0141042).
Re claim 9. DeBaun teaches an inductive power transfer receiver (receiver <110>, see DeBaun: Fig. 1B) comprising an
inductive power input circuit (receiver impedance matching network/IMN <126>, see DeBaun: [0095], [0097], Fig. 1B) comprising:
a receiver coil (receiver resonator coil <108R>, see DeBaun: [0097], Fig. 1B),
a second tuning circuit (reactance <X3>) coupled to
a load (load device <112>), or
a rectifier (rectifier <128>) coupled to a load (load device <112>, see DeBaun: [0097], Fig. 1B),
a power control circuit (tunable reactances <X1>, <X2>, see DeBaun: [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding receiver IMN <126> controlling power efficiency/power through and output from the IMN) for controlling output power coupled between the receiver coil and second turning circuit, and
a controller (Rx controller <129>, see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding control of IMN <126>) configured to control the power control circuit,
wherein the power control circuit comprises:
at least first variable reactance components (variable reactance <X1>, see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B) coupled between the receiver coil and second tuning circuits, and
at least one third variable reactance component (variable reactance <X2>) across the first reactance components where they couple to the second tuning circuits that can be varied to control the output power provided to the load (see DeBaun: [0096], [0100], [0103-0105], [0116], Fig. 1B regarding all reactances able to be tunable/variable, and control of IMN <126> tuning to control power efficiency/power provided to load device). See DeBaun: [0095-0097], [0100-0105], [0116], Figs. 1B.
Although DeBaun discloses that IMN <126> may further be designed such that <X1> and <X3> are balanced (see DeBaun: [0105], Fig. 1B, i.e. there would be corresponding components mirrored on the opposite side of the coil) and also according to known tunable impedance network configurations incorporated by reference (see DeBaun: [0104], Fig. 1B), DeBaun does not explicitly depict an example IMN where there is further a first tuning circuit and a second variable reactance component connected and arranged as recited. Kesler (corresponding to the patent incorporated by reference), however teaches that it is known in the art of resonant wireless power transmission system impedance network design that the impedance network may be designed to be balanced/symmetric (see Kesler: [0312]) and also add additional fixed tuning elements to reduce stress on the variable components (see Kesler: [0321-0325]), and also demonstrates an example impedance matching network arrangement having first-third variable reactances, with third reactance across the first and second, and an additional first tuning circuit component coupled between the variable components and the coil (see Kesler: [0340], Figs. 33e,f,l,m). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DeBaun to incorporate the teachings of Kesler by having the IMN designed to further be balanced and also include additional fixed tuning component as suggested by Kesler for purposes of providing known impedance matching network topology that predictably allows for controlled variation of impedance and tuning for the wireless power receiver (see Kesler: [0279-0280], [0340], Figs. 33e,f,l,m) and also known advantages such as allowing the circuit to reject common-mode noise and reducing stress on variable components (see Kesler: [0312], [0321-0325]). Note that the combination of DeBaun and Kesler would suggest providing additional first tuning circuit to the IMN <126> of DeBaun (similar to Kesler: Fig. 33e,f), and designing the system to be balanced (i.e. providing symmetric <X1> and <X3> on other side of coil in DeBaun: Fig. 1B), which would thereby result in the recited connection of first and second reactances (<X1> and mirrored <X1>) between added first tuning circuit and second tuning circuit (<X3>), with third reactance (<X2>) across the first and second reactances (<X1> and mirrored <X1>) where they couple to second tuning circuit (<X3>).
Re claims 15-16, the further recited limitations essentially correspond to the limitations recited in claims 11-12, respectively, and are therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied above.
Conclusion
In summary, it is recommended Applicant consider the cited prior art of record which appears to suggest a large number of prior art wireless power receivers which utilize variable reactances to generally control the power output to receiver rectifier and load, having similar topologies and arrangements to Applicant’s example embodiments. Applicant should also consider the cited prior art below for further prior art which may more explicitly describe use of such circuits for power regulation and control of other desired parameters. It is recommend that if Applicant believes the specific circuit embodiment of Fig. 5A (i.e. all of the components of tuning networks and power control circuit and particular circuit connection) together with particular manner of control of each variable reactance component to reach desired control targets (i.e. feedback of power output to control parallel reactance to reach desired target power, feedback of power output to control the two series reactances to reach desired target power factor) would be distinguished and nonobvious over the teachings of similar prior art references, that Applicant amend the claims to explicitly and clearly all structures, connections, and specific manner of operation corresponding to the features. Applicant should also address the noted Objections and 112 issues, and remove any redundant independent claims. Applicant is cautioned that claim language is given broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xie (CN109617255A) and Von Novak (US2017/0093167) also disclose wireless power receivers with variable reactance networks controlled to regulate the power output by the receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights