The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 33 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “one or more devices” in the preamble but later in the second wherein clause recites “…delivering wireless power to the devices through the resonators…” Applicant appears to intend at least one device from the “one or more” recitation but then recites “devices” which appears to be a plurality of devices. The recitations should be congruent with each other and should either recite “one or more devices” or a plurality of devices throughout the claim. For purposes of this office action, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “one or more devices”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is an apparatus claim that requires the structure of “array of resonators”, “a powered resonator”, and “one or more devices” having “a respective receiver resonator”. The claim recites multiple “wherein” clauses followed by narrative language that does not further structurally distinguish the claim over the prior art of record. For example, claim 21 recites “wherein resonators of the array of resonators are tuned to a tuning frequency of resonance that is higher or lower than the operating frequency…” This is narrative language describing the structure of the resonators without actually reciting further limiting structure for how the resonators are actually tuned to be higher or lower than the operating frequency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites that the tuned frequency that is higher or lower than the operating frequency to “result in the array of resonators having… one or more of:” followed by a list of intended results written in the alternative and then followed by two wherein clauses that are related to “uniformity” and “higher uniformity”. However, the “higher uniformity” in the intended results is not positively recited (i.e., “one or more”) and the two wherein clauses that follow are directed to said uniformity that are not positively recited and/or required to be read into the claim. If applicant intends for the wherein clauses that deal with “uniformity” and “higher uniformity” to be given any patentable weight, they should be positively recited and required to be read into the claim. Claim 33 recites similar limitations and is therefore objected to for similar reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 21 and 33 each recite results in the array of resonators having, “when a receiver resonator of the receiver resonators moves above the array of resonators…” The recitation of “when…” is conditional language that does not positively recite a limitation of the claim, but instead merely describes a condition under which a result may occur. Applicant should amend the claim to recite “in response to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 21 and 33 each recite the limitation "the uniformity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 21 and 33 each recite “…wherein the higher uniformity is equated to the delta, between the first resonator of the array and the second resonator of the array of resonators, being lower;” The recitation of “lower” is a relative term without a reference for comparison. The claim does not specify what the delta is lower than. As such, the claim fails to define what qualifies as “higher uniformity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 is a method step and therefore requires steps to be recited. However, claim 33 recites several wherein clauses that are not steps. The claim should be amended to recite method steps. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-26, 28-30, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (2014/0265617 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Roy teaches a wireless power transfer apparatus configured to provide wireless power at an operating frequency (par [252] and related discussion; operating frequency read on by the frequency of the source resonator) within a defined boundary (see for e.g., fig.31) to one or more devices through (par [252]; one device 720/3008), for each device of the one or more devices, a respective receiver resonator (par [252]; receiver resonator 704) for the device, to be placed on a surface associated with an array of resonators within the defined boundary (par [252]; respective resonator 704 for device 3008 placed on a surface associated with an array of resonators 706 within the defined boundary), the apparatus comprising:
the array of resonators (array of resonators 706, pars [252-253]);
a powered resonator (702, par [252]; source resonator 702) for providing power through electromagnetic resonance to the array of resonators (pars [91, 144-145, 252] and related discussion; resonator 702 “for” providing power through near-field electromagnetic resonance to the array of resonators 706);
wherein the powered resonator is powered at the operating frequency (par [252]; i.e., the source resonator frequency);
wherein the powered resonator (702) is an external resonator for powering the array of the resonators (706) from above (fig.31, par [252]; 702 is above the array of resonators) or below the array of resonators;
wherein power is transferred through electromagnetic field coupling at the operating frequency from the powered resonator (702) to any resonator of the array of resonators (706) for delivering wireless power to the devices (i.e., the one or more devices) through the resonators of the array of resonators across the surface associated with the array of resonators (pars [144-145, 252]; Roy teaches power is transferred through near-field electromagnetic field coupling at the operating source resonator 702 frequency to any resonator of the array of resonators 706), wherein the resonators of the array of resonators are adapted to transmit wireless power at the operating frequency to the one or more receiver resonators through electromagnetic field coupling at the operating frequency by including electromagnetic field coupling between neighboring resonators of the array of resonators (pars [144-145, 252-253]; the array of resonators 706 are “adapted to”/capable of transmitting wireless power at the operating frequency of the source to the receiver resonator 704 through near-field electromagnetic field coupling at the operating frequency by including electromagnetic field coupling between resonators in the array of resonators further nothing that that the repeater resonators are wirelessly coupled);
wherein resonators of the array of resonators are tuned to a tuning frequency of resonance that is higher or lower than the operating frequency (pars [166, 252-253]; Roy teaches the repeater resonators 706 “may be fixed tuned to a fixed resonant frequency close to the resonant frequency of the source resonator. Alternatively, the resonant frequencies may differ.” That is, “differ” supports the repeater resonators are tuned to a resonant frequency not exactly identical to that of the source operating frequency, which is either higher or lower than the operating frequency. Par [166] teaches, for e.g., the repeater resonators are tuned to a resonant frequency substantially greater than, or substantially less than the frequency of the source. Therefore, the resonators are tuned to a tuning frequency higher or lower than the source operating frequency. Examiner Note: the claim does not distinguish the degree to which the resonance is higher or lower. A small difference from the source frequency would make the repeater resonator frequency slightly higher or lower);
wherein the tuning frequency is a resonant frequency of a resonator without electromagnetic interference (pars [165-166, 252-253]; Roy does not teach the resonant frequency as having “electromagnetic interference”; thus, the resonant frequency is without electromagnetic interference);
wherein power is transferred between the resonators of the array of resonators through the electromagnetic field coupling (pars [144-145, 252-253]), wherein the resonators of the array of resonators are tuned at the tuning frequency that is higher or lower than the operating frequency (pars [166, 252-253]; i.e., repeater resonators 706 with resonant frequency that may “differ” including the resonant frequencies greater than or less than the operating frequency) to result in the array of resonators having (Examiner Note: the recitation of “to result in” is a recitation of intended use and is not further limiting), when a receiver resonator (704) of the receiver resonators moves above the array of resonators (706) from one resonator to the next (Note: “when…” is a conditional statement, which is a not a positive recitation and is not required to happen), one or more of (“one or more” requires only one of the listed intended results and does not require all):
a higher average wireless power transferred to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
a higher average wireless power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices at the operating frequency (par [176]; Since Roy teaches the structure of the array of resonators having a tuning frequency higher or lower than the operating frequency, it would then structurally have the intended claimed result. Further, Roy teaches “either the operating frequency or the resonant frequency of the resonators can be adjusted away from each other such that the efficiency (e.g., average efficiency) increases”- the resonant frequency of the resonators, namely when the tuning frequency of the repeater resonators “fr” is different from the operating frequency, even to a slight degree, a higher average power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices is present. Examiner Note: The examiner notes this is an intended benefit of the structure already taught by Roy and does not structurally further narrow the claim),
a higher maximum power transferred to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
a higher maximum power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
a higher uniformity of wireless power transferred to the one or more devices at the operating frequency, and
a higher uniformity of wireless power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
than when the resonators of the array of resonators are tuned at the same operating frequency (pars [176, 252-253]; i.e., than when the resonators are tuned to exactly the same identical source operating frequency);
wherein the uniformity of wireless power transferred and wireless power transfer efficiency (Note: this narrative language is directed towards the non-selected option (i.e., the uniformity) of the intended results and thus is not positively recited and/or required) are defined by a delta between a first resonator of the array of resonators with a minimum wireless power transferred, or wireless power transfer efficiency, to the device at the operating frequency, and a second resonator of the array of resonators with a maximum wireless power transferred, or wireless power transfer efficiency, to the device at the operating frequency as a function of receiver resonator position with respect to the resonators of the array of resonators (Note: this narrative language is directed towards the non-selected option (i.e., the uniformity) of the intended results and is thus not positively recited and/or required);
wherein the higher uniformity is equated to the delta, between the first resonator of the array of resonators and the second resonator of the array of resonators, being lower (Note: this narrative language is directed towards the non-selected option (i.e., the higher uniformity) of the intended results and is thus not positively recited and/or required); and
wherein the electromagnetic field coupling is an electromagnetic interaction between two resonators through an electromagnetic field (pars [144-145, 252]).
Regarding Claim 23,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein at least some resonators of the array of resonators are positioned at an angle with respect to one another or are positioned on different parallel planes (Roy, fig.31, pars [252-253]; The resonators 706 in the first row of tiles are positioned on different parallel planes with respect to the second row of tiles. Alternatively, the resonators in the first column of tiles are positioned on different parallel with respect to the second column of tiles).
Regarding Claim 24,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein coupling coefficients between a wireless power receiver of the device and a resonator of the array of resonators are not equal for different resonators of the array of resonators (Roy, fig.31, pars [116-117, 252-253]; The coupling coefficient commonly referred to as k in the art is a function of distance between the coils/resonators. The receiver resonator 704 of the device has a first coupling coefficient A with a resonator 3020 of the array immediately to the left and a coupling coefficient B with a different resonator 3018 two tiles away. The coupling coefficient between the device resonator and the resonator immediately to the left is different/not equal to the coupling coefficient between the device resonator and the resonator 3018 two tiles away- this is because the distance between the device and each resonator 3020, 3018 of the array resonators are different-thus, the coupling coefficients are not equal).
Examiner Note: See Jung (2015/0097441)- par 34 that teaches “the coupling coefficient may vary according to the relative position and the distance between the transmission coil and the reception coil”. Jung is not a modifying reference- it is only being relied upon as evidence for the coupling coefficient being a function of the distance between resonators. See MPEP 2131.01 (III).
Regarding Claim 25,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein coupling coefficients between the powered resonator and a resonator of the array of resonators are not equal for different
resonators of the array of resonators (Roy, fig.31, pars [116-117, 252-253]; The coupling coefficient commonly referred to as “k” in the art is a function of distance between the coils/resonators. The powered resonator 702 and resonator 3014 has a first coupling coefficient A and the power resonator 702 and resonator 3018 further down have a coupling coefficient B. The coupling coefficient between the powered resonator 702 and the resonator 3014 immediately in front is different/not equal to the coupling coefficient between the powered resonator and the resonator 3018 farther down- this is because the distance between the powered resonator and each resonator 3014 and 3018 of the array is different- thus coupling coefficients are not equal).
Examiner Note: See Jung (2015/0097441)- par 34 that teaches “the coupling coefficient may vary according to the relative position and the distance between the transmission coil and the reception coil”. Jung is not a modifying reference- it is only being relied upon as evidence for the coupling coefficient being a function of the distance between resonators. See MPEP 2131.01 (III).
Regarding Claim 26,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein the array of resonators has an internal or external adaptive reactance or wherein the resonators of the array of resonators have an internal adaptive reactance (pars [155, 252-253]; Roy teaches each repeater resonator 706 includes additional control circuitry, tuning circuitry/internal circuitry to adjust capacitance, inductance, and resistance of the repeater resonator. Capacitance and inductance create reactance and adjusting the capacitance or inductance adjusts the resonator’s reactance-thus the resonators of the array have an internal adaptive reactance. It is further noted that it is understand that one skilled in the art would understand adjusting capacitance and inductance correlates to reactance- for example, see Sato (2011/0025132), figs.1-2, pars [30, 37-38] as further evidence) or external adaptive reactance.
Regarding Claim 28,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein at least one of reactance, inductance and capacitance of one or more of the resonators of the array of resonators is adaptive (pars [155, 252-253]; repeater resonator of the array has control circuitry that adjusts the capacitance and inductance of the resonator- thus at least one of the inductance or capacitance of the repeater resonator is adaptive), or at least one of reactance, inductance and capacitance of the array of
resonators is adaptive, wherein the array of resonators does not lose functionality at the operating frequency when one or more resonators of the array of resonators is cut, deactivated or electromagnetically interfered with (pars [166, 254]; when one or more resonators of the array is slightly detuned/electromagnetically interfered with, for e.g., one that is not in the path of the receiver device, the rest of the array of the resonators do not lose functionality at the operating frequency).
Regarding Claim 29,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein the resonators of the array of resonators are integrated into a floor (par [252]; Roy teaches the repeater resonators are embedded in or attached beneath the floor tiles. Because the floor tiles form part of the floor, the repeater resonators are understood to be integrated into a floor), a ceiling or a wall.
Regarding Claim 30,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and teaches further comprising one or more of:
a plurality of the powered resonators (fig.31, par [252]; attached to wall and/or integrated to a floor tile); a plurality of the receiver resonators; one or a plurality of repeater resonators that are not positioned in the array of resonators; and a plurality of the array of resonators (Roy, fig.31, pars [252-253]).
Regarding Claim 33,
Roy teaches a method of providing wireless power at an operating frequency within a defined boundary to one or more devices, with each device of the one or more devices includes a receiver resonator (see rejection of claim 21), to be placed on a surface within the defined boundary (see rejection of claim 21), comprising:
receiving wireless power at an operating frequency (par [252] and related discussion; operating frequency read on by the frequency of the source resonator) from a resonator (702, par [252]) that provides power through electromagnetic resonance to an array of resonators of two or more resonators (pars [91, 144-145, 252-253] and related discussion; resonator 702 provides power through near-field electromagnetic resonance to the array of resonators 706, which are at least two resonators), wherein resonators of the array of resonators are tuned to a tuning frequency of resonance that is higher or lower than the operating frequency (see rejection of claim 21), wherein the tuning frequency is a resonant frequency of a resonator without electromagnetic interference (see rejection of claim 21);
wherein power is transferred between the resonators of the array of resonators through the electromagnetic field coupling (see rejection of claim 21), and the tunings of the resonators of the array of resonators at the tuning frequency that is higher or lower than the operating frequency results in the array of resonators having (see rejection of claim 21; Examiner Note: the recitation of “result in” is a recitation of intended use and is not further limiting), when a receiver resonator (704) of the receiver resonators moves above the array of resonators (706) from one resonator to the next (Note: “when…” is a conditional statement, which is a not a positive recitation and is not required to happen), one or more of (“one or more” requires only one of the listed intended results and does not require all):
a higher average wireless power transferred to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
a higher average wireless power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices at the operating frequency (par [176]; Since Roy teaches the structure of the array of resonators having a tuning frequency higher or lower than the operating frequency, it would then structurally have the intended claimed result. Further, Roy teaches “either the operating frequency or the resonant frequency of the resonators can be adjusted away from each other such that the efficiency (e.g., average efficiency) increases”- the resonant frequency of the resonators, namely when the tuning frequency of the repeater resonators “fr” is different from the operating frequency, even to a slight degree, a higher average power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices is present. Examiner Note: The examiner notes this is an intended benefit of the structure already taught by Roy and does not structurally further narrow the claim),
a higher maximum power transferred to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
a higher maximum power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
a higher uniformity of wireless power transferred to the one or more devices at the operating frequency, and
a higher uniformity of wireless power transfer efficiency to the one or more devices at the operating frequency,
than when the resonators of the array of resonators are tuned at the same operating frequency (pars [166, 176, 252-253]; i.e., than when the resonators are tuned to exactly the same identical source operating frequency);
wherein the uniformity of wireless power transferred and wireless power transfer efficiency (Note: this narrative language is directed towards the non-selected option (i.e., the uniformity) of the intended results and thus is not positively recited and/or required) are defined by a delta between a first resonator of the array of resonators with a minimum wireless power transferred, or wireless power transfer efficiency, to the device at the operating frequency, and a second resonator of the array of resonators with a maximum wireless power transferred, or wireless power transfer efficiency, to the device at the operating frequency as a function of receiver resonator position with respect to the resonators of the array of resonators (Note: this narrative language is directed towards the non-selected option (i.e., the uniformity) of the intended results and is thus not positively recited and/or required);
wherein the higher uniformity is equated to the delta, between the first resonator of the array of resonators and the second resonator of the array of resonators, being lower (Note: this narrative language is directed towards the non-selected option (i.e., the higher uniformity) of the intended results and is thus not positively recited and/or required); and
transmitting with the array of resonators (706) wireless power at the operating frequency to the one or more devices (par [252]; one device 720/3008), sent to their respective receiver resonators (pars [252-253]; since only one device is required, sent to respective resonator 704), placed on the surface to wirelessly power the one or more devices (pars [252-253]).
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) 22, 32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (2014/0265617 A1).
Regarding Claim 22,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein each resonator of the array resonators has a different tuning frequency with respect to the source operating frequency (pars [252, 254]).
While it is implied that the array of resonators could obviously have different tuning frequencies with respect to one another (for e.g., par 252 states the resonant frequencies may differ and par 254 states “slightly detuning the resonant frequencies between the repeater resonators 706 and the source resonator 702”), Roy does not explicitly disclose in the floor tiles embodiment that each resonator in the array has a different tuning frequency with respect to one another.
Roy, however, teaches in some implementations each resonator in the array has a different tuning frequency with respect to one another (par [166]; the repeater resonator 706 can be detuned to have a resonant frequency that is greater than or less than the frequency of at least one other repeater resonator 706 with which the repeater resonator is designed to interact or couple).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Roy’s resonators of the array to have a different tuning frequency with respect to one another, because the tuning value is a result-effective variable well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05) further noting that Roy already teaches the repeater resonator frequencies differ from the source operating frequency and detuning the repeater resonator-thus, tuning the frequency of one repeater resonator to be greater or lesser than another repeater resonator as discussed within Roy’s par [166] would have amounted to nothing more than the obviousness of selecting values based on the intended use of the system.
Regarding Claim 32,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 in which the array of resonators is intended to be used in floor tiles (see fig.31, pars [252-253]).
Roy’s fig.31 does not teach in wherein the array of resonators is joined to a flat surface of furniture.
Roy, however, teaches other applications for the array of resonators including wherein the array of resonators is joined to a flat surface of furniture (pars [256-257, 259, 264]; repeater resonators such as the ones defined in claim 21 can obviously be used in furniture such and joined/attached below for e.g., a table surface/furniture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurs’ array of resonators as defined in claim 21 and used them in furniture by joining them to a flat surface of the furniture, since applicant has not disclosed that implementing the array resonators in other well-known areas in the art (i.e., furniture, table surface, etc.) solves any stated problem and it is merely an intended use of the array of resonators.
Regarding Claim 34,
Claim 34 recites the same subject matter as in claim 22 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (2014/0265617 A1) in view of Kurs et al. (2013/0200721 A1).
Regarding Claim 27,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21. Roy does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless power transfer is used for transfer of data contained within a wirelessly transferred wave between the powered resonator, the array of resonators, and a receiver resonator of the device.
Kurs, however, teaches it is known in the art to have wireless power transfer is used for transfer of data contained within a wirelessly transferred wave between the powered resonator, the array of resonators, and a receiver resonator of the device (pars [82, 270-271]; array of resonators wirelessly communicate data between each other “by modulating the magnetic field used for power transfer” and “in embodiments, wireless data communication links to other components such as devices, sources, and repeaters may transmit or receiver data… A wireless communication channel may be separate from the wireless energy transfer channel, or it may be the same… The resonators used for power exchange may also be used to exchange information…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings Roy to that of Kurs in order to implement a communication capability so that data relevant to the system can be transferred between the resonators as is well-known and well-desired in the art.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (2014/0265617 A1) in view of Seo et al. (2016/0079811 A1).
Regarding Claim 31,
Roy teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21. Roy does not explicitly disclose improving one or more characteristics provided by a metamaterial selected form: a focusing of an electromagnetic field.
Seo (figs.2-3, 5), however, teaches by using a metamaterial, a characteristic of focusing an electromagnetic field is improved (pars [93-98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the array of resonators in Roy by a metamaterial. The motivation would have been to improve the transmission efficiency.
Prior Art Deemed Relevant But Not Currently Relied Upon:
Gluzman (2016/0329753)- Figs.1-3, par [52, 56, 57]- repeater resonators 120, 140 tuned to different resonant frequencies that are lower than the primary operating frequency of the source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights