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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-21 and 24-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 15-20 of the instant application are merely broad presentations of claims 16-21 and 24-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,227.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (US 2018/0212451; “Schmidt”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a wireless power transfer device (figure 11), the wireless power transfer device being configured:
to generate a plurality of directionally different potential magnetic fields (using coils 351-371); and
to select, from among the plurality of directionally different potential magnetic fields (Potentially available magnetic fields generated by a coil vary based on size of the coil, position of the coil, level and phase of current provided to the coil.), a set magnetic field based on preliminary information about at least one of:
a gravity orientation of the wireless power transfer device relative to a gravity vector (A gravity orientation of a device on Earth will inherently align the gravity vector on Earth.),
a bodily orientation of the wireless power transfer device relative to a patient's body (The bodily orientation and position of the IMD 15 in the patient 2 can be seen in figure 11.), or
a plurality of load comparisons, each between first and second loads in first and second LC resonant circuits of the wireless power transfer device and in response to the wireless power transfer device generating a corresponding one of the plurality of directionally different potential magnetic fields, the first and second LC resonant circuits respectively including first and second transmitting coils.
As for claim 2, Schmidt teaches comprising: at least one transmitting coil (351-371);
a driver (404 in figure 12A; para. [0134]) configured to drive the at least one transmitting coil;
a memory storing instructions (442 in figure 12A; para. [0127]-[0128]); and
a controller (441 in figure 12A; para. [0127]-[0128]), the controller configured:
to select the set magnetic field based on the preliminary information and in response to executing the instructions (Potentially available magnetic fields generated by a coil vary based on size of the coil, position of the coil, level and phase of current provided to the coil.), and
after selecting the set magnetic field, to generate the set magnetic field by driving the at least one transmitting coil via the driver (Para. [0114], [0134], and [0148] teach driving the coils to generate a desired magnetic field.).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt teaches wherein the preliminary information is at least about the bodily orientation of the wireless power transfer device relative to a patient's body (The bodily orientation and position of the IMD 15 in the patient 2 can be seen in figure 11.).
As for claim 9, Schmidt teaches a wireless power transfer system (figure 11), comprising: the wireless power transfer device of claim 1; and
an implantable medical device (15) comprising a receiver coil (para. [0091]),
wherein the selecting the set magnetic field comprises determining a degree of alignment between the set magnetic field and the receiver coil, and the set magnetic field is selected based on the determined degree of alignment (Placing the IMD 15 within the overlapping region 370 aligns the magnetic field and receiver coil. Para. [0120]).
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 19, the methods as recited in the claims are inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 9.
Claims 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshima et al. (US 10,374,460; “Oshima”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 10, Oshima teaches a wireless power transfer device (figure 7), comprising:
a first transmitting coil (21) oriented along a first axis (horizontal direction in figure 7);
a second transmitting coil (22) oriented along a second axis (vertical direction in figure 7) different from the first axis;
a driver (31-32) configured to drive the first and second transmitting coils (21-22); and
a controller (35) configured:
to simultaneously and differentially drive the first and second transmitting coils (21-22), via the driver (31-32), and
to determine a first amplitude of a first current, a second amplitude of a second current, and a phase difference between the first and second currents, the first and second transmitting coils being configured to generate a magnetic field aligned with a receiver coil of an electronic device in response to the first and second transmitting coils being driven with the first and second currents (Col. 3, lines 33-41 teach regulating amplitude and phase currents provided to coils 21-23 to generate a magnetic field for transferring power to a receiver coil within the magnetic field.).
As for claim 12, Oshima teaches where the wireless power transfer device is configured to couple to a patient's body such that the first and second transmitting coils have a set bodily orientation relative to the patient's body (Oshima teaches “supplying power to a capsule endoscope inserted in the body of a person being treated.” Col. 1, lines 34-37.),
wherein the controller (35) is configured to determine the first amplitude, the second amplitude, and the phase difference (col. 3, lines 33-41) based on the bodily orientation of the first and second transmitting coils (The orientation of the transmitting coils and the receiver coil are shown in figure 7 of Oshima.).
As for claim 14, Oshima teaches a wireless power transfer system, comprising: the wireless power transfer device of claim 10; and the electronic device, the electronic device being an implantable medical device (Col. 1, lines 34-37).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Meskens (US 2018/0262037; “Meskens”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt teaches the wireless power transfer device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the selecting the set magnetic field comprises determining a first amplitude of a first current, a second amplitude of a second current, and a phase difference between the first and second currents, the wireless power transfer device being configured to generate the set magnetic field in response to driving the first and second transmitting coils with the first and second currents.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to control an orientation of a magnetic field from a transmitting coil by adjusting an amplitude and a phase of currents provided to the transmitting coil. For example, see [0021], [0031], and [0036] of Meskens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amplitude and phase of the current provided to the transmitting coils of Schmidt because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known transmitting coil magnetic field orientation control operation.
Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Harrison et al. (US 2019/0098122; “Harrison”).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt teaches wherein the preliminary information is at least about the gravity orientation of the wireless power transfer device (A gravity orientation of a device on Earth will inherently align the gravity vector on Earth.), but fails to teach wherein the wireless power transfer device comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to measure the gravity orientation of the wireless power transfer device.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to determine a gravity orientation of a device in wireless transmitter/receiver devices using an inertial sensor. For example, see figure 2 and para. [0049] of Harrison.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inertial measurement unit to determine the gravity orientation of Schmidt because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known gravity orientation determination device.
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt teaches wherein the preliminary information is further about at least one of:
a gravity orientation of an implantable medical device (15) relative to a gravity vector (A gravity orientation of a device on Earth will inherently align the gravity vector on Earth.);
a bodily orientation of the IMD (15) relative to a patient's body (The bodily orientation and position of the IMD 15 in the patient 2 can be seen in figure 11.); or
a prior magnetic field previously generated by the wireless power transfer device and a prior gravity orientation of the wireless power transfer device relative to a gravity vector while the wireless power transfer device generated the prior magnetic field.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the methods as recited in the claims are inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Aldhaher (US 2021/0083634; reference of record).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Schmidt teaches the wireless power transfer device of claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the preliminary information is at least about the plurality of load comparisons; and wherein a load comparison of the plurality of load comparisons comprises a comparison between a corresponding voltage ratio to a corresponding amplitude ratio, wherein the corresponding amplitude ratio is based on a ratio of first amplitude of a first current provided to the first transmitting coil by a driver and based on a first bus voltage and a second amplitude of a second current provided to the second transmitting coil by the driver and based on a second bus voltage, and wherein the corresponding voltage ratio is based on a ratio of the first bus voltage and the second bus voltage.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to control a current provided to a transmitting coil, which generates a magnetic field of the transmitting coil, using a value of a reflected load. For example, see para. [0175]-[0178] of Aldhaher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the currents/magnetic fields of Schmidt according to reflected loads because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known transmitting coil magnetic field control operation. The voltage ratio and amplitude ratio of claim 8 are indicators of reflected loads (para. [00236] of the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Harrison.
Regarding claim 11, Oshima teaches the wireless power transfer device of claim 10, as detailed above, but fails to teach an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to determine a gravity orientation of the first and second transmitting coils relative to a gravity vector, wherein the controller is configured to determine the first amplitude, the second amplitude, and the phase difference based on the gravity orientation of the first and second transmitting coils.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to determine a gravity orientation of a device in wireless transmitter/receiver devices using an inertial sensor. For example, see figure 2 and para. [0049] of Harrison.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an inertial measurement unit to determine the gravity orientation of Oshima because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known gravity orientation determination device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima in view of Aldhaher.
Regarding claim 13, Oshima teaches a first resonant circuit comprising the first transmitting coil (21); and
a second resonant circuit comprising the second transmitting coil (22),
wherein the controller (35) is configured to differentially drive the first and second transmitting coils to generate a plurality of directionally different preliminary magnetic fields (The regulating of amplitude and phase of the currents provided to coils 21-23 generates different magnetic fields. Col. 3, lines 33-41.).
Oshima fails to teach the first and second resonant circuits comprising capacitors; and wherein, the controller is configured to determine the first amplitude, the second amplitude, and the phase difference based on a plurality of pairs of first and second reflected loads in the first and second LC resonant circuits, each of the pairs being in response to a corresponding one of the plurality of directionally different preliminary magnetic fields being generated.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to embody a resonant circuit of a power transfer device with an LC resonant circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embody the resonant circuits of Oshima as LC resonant circuits because such a modification would have been implementing well-known power-transferring resonant devices.
Furthermore, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to control a current provided to a transmitting coil, which generates a magnetic field of the transmitting coil, using a value of a reflected load. For example, see para. [0175]-[0178] of Aldhaher.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the currents/magnetic fields of Oshima according to reflected loads because such a modification would have been implementing a well-known transmitting coil magnetic field control operation.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record and not relied upon teach wireless power transfer devices, comprising: multiple power transfer coils, phase and amplitude control for magnetic field orientation, gravity-based coil orientation, and body-implanted power receivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849 March 31, 2026