DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 10-11, 13-18 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.
In regards to claim 10, line 1, the recitation “the sampling circuit” lacks proper antecedent basis from its dependent claim of claim 8. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The WPT system of claim 8” will be read as “The WPT system of claim 9”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 11, line 1, the recitation “the filter” lacks proper antecedent basis from its dependent claim of claim 9. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The WPT system of claim 9” will be read as “The WPT system of claim 10”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 13, line 1, the recitation “The method of claim 11” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 is not a method claim. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The method of claim 11” will be read as “The method of claim 12”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 14, line 1, the recitation “the filter” lacks proper antecedent basis from its dependent claim of claim 12. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The method of claim 12” will be read as “The method of claim 13”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 15, line 1, the recitation “The method of claim 11” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 is not a method claim. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The method of claim 11” will be read as “The method of claim 12”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 16, line 1, the recitation “the magnetic ring” lacks proper antecedent basis from its dependent claim of claim 14. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The method of claim 14” will be read as “The method of claim 15”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 17, line 1, the recitation “the magnetic ring” lacks proper antecedent basis from its dependent claim of claim 14. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The method of claim 14” will be read as “The method of claim 15”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
In regards to claim 18, line 1, the recitation “the magnetic ring” lacks proper antecedent basis from its dependent claim of claim 14. It will be interpreted that the recitation “The method of claim 14” will be read as “The method of claim 15”. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todaka et al. (US 2020/0280213 A1) in view of Imamoto et al. (US 2004/0232909 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Todaka discloses, in figure 1, a wireless power transfer (WPT) system (wireless power transfer system of power transmission apparatus 10 and power reception apparatus 20) with a series compensation structure on a primary side (10) (Par 0052-0053), the system comprising: a) an inverter (12) at the primary side (10) (Par 0050); b) a rectifier (22) at a secondary side (20) (Par 0139); c) a resonant circuit (Fig. 2; Par 0053 “the power transmission (primary) resonator 13 and the power reception (secondary) resonator 23 are shown as the series resonant circuit in which the resonant coil 13a, 23a and the resonant capacitor 13b, 23b are connected in series.”) configured between the inverter (12) and the rectifier (22) (Par 0052); the resonant circuit (Fig. 2; 13a, 13b) (23a, 23b) comprising a primary coil (13a) and a secondary coil (23a) (Par 0053).
Todaka does not disclose wherein the resonant circuit further comprises a sensor inductor connected to the secondary coil; the sensor inductor adapted to detect voltage transients on the sensor inductor.
However, Imamoto discloses, in figure 1, wherein the resonant circuit (13a, 13b, 23a, 23b as discussed in Todaka) further comprises a sensor inductor (4) connected to the secondary coil (23a as discussed in Todaka) (Par 0051, 0054); the sensor inductor (4) adapted to detect voltage transients on the sensor inductor (Par 0064; “the transient voltage actually detected by a sensor coil 4 during the course of disappearance of the magnetic field is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux density B with respect to time”).
Thus, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit by including a sensor inductor connected to the secondary coil; the sensor inductor adapted to detect voltage transients on the sensor inductor as taught by Imamoto in order to detect transient voltages which reduces the voltage to safe levels and protects the circuit (Imamoto; Par 0064).
In regards to claim 2, Todaka and Imamoto disclose the WPT system of claim 1. Todaka further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the sensor inductor (sensor coil 4 as taught by Imamoto) is connected to the secondary coil (23a) in series (See Fig. 2; sensor coil 4 taught by Imamoto is connected to the secondary coil 23a in series at terminal opposite of capacitor 23b when combined).
In regards to claim 3, Todaka and Imamoto disclose the WPT system of claim 2. Todaka further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the sensor inductor (sensor coil 4 as taught by Imamoto) is connected to a different terminal (terminal opposite of capacitor 23b) of the secondary coil (23a) than a capacitor (23b) at the secondary side (20) which is also connected to the secondary coil (23a) (See Fig. 2; sensor coil 4 taught by Imamoto is connected to the secondary coil 23a in series at terminal opposite of capacitor 23b when combined).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todaka et al. (US 2020/0280213 A1) in view of Imamoto et al. (US 2004/0232909 A1) in further view of Yu et al. (US 2016/0189855 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Todaka and Imamoto disclose the WPT system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the sensor inductor comprises a magnetic ring.
However, Yu discloses, in figure 2, wherein the sensor inductor (sensor coil 4 as discussed in Imamoto) comprises a magnetic ring (magnetic ring 4) (Par 0031-0034).
Thus, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit with Imamoto’s sensor inductor by including wherein the sensor inductor comprises a magnetic ring in order to improve production efficiency, and lower labor costs (Yu; Par 0044).
In regards to claim 5, Todaka, Imamoto, and Yu disclose the WPT system of claim 4. Yu further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the magnetic ring (4) is wound with a multiturn coil (Par 0032, 0037).
In regards to claim 6, Todaka, Imamoto, and Yu disclose the WPT system of claim 4. Yu further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the magnetic ring (4) is a nickel-zinc magnetic ring (Par 0034).
In regards to claim 7, Todaka, Imamoto, and Yu discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the magnetic ring has a magnetic permeability of 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for wherein the magnetic ring has a magnetic permeability of 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit with Imamoto’s sensor inductor by including wherein the magnetic ring has a magnetic permeability of 100 in order to improve production efficiency, and lower labor costs (Yu; Par 0044).
In regards to claim 8, Todaka, Imamoto, and Yu discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the magnetic ring has a number of coil turns equal to 22. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for wherein the magnetic ring has a number of coil turns equal to 22, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit with Imamoto’s sensor inductor by including wherein the magnetic ring has a number of coil turns equal to 22 in order to improve production efficiency, and lower labor costs (Yu; Par 0044).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todaka et al. (US 2020/0280213 A1) in view of Imamoto et al. (US 2004/0232909 A1) in further view of Reilly et al. (US 2011/0133557 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Todaka and Imamoto disclose the WPT system of claim 1. Todaka further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the rectifier (22) is an active rectifier comprising a plurality of transistors (22a-22d) (Par 0050-0051, 0139), but does not disclose the sensor inductor being further coupled with a sampling circuit, which in turn connects to a driving circuit; the driving circuit adapted to provide driving signals to the rectifier based on the detected voltage transients by the sensor inductor.
However, Reilly discloses, in figure 2, the sensor inductor (250, 265) being further coupled with a sampling circuit (Par 0039; “controller 275 includes a timing circuit to determine a time delay period after detection of a transient voltage spike”), which in turn connects to a driving circuit (24 as taught by Todaka); the driving circuit adapted to provide driving signals to the rectifier (22a-22d as taught by Todaka) based on the detected voltage transients by the sensor inductor (Par 0039-0041; controller 275 provides driving signals to switch 280 based on detected voltage transients spikes, thus the controller 275 provide driving signals to the rectifier 22a-22d taught by Todaka and connects to the driving circuit 24 taught by Todaka when combined).
Thus, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit by including the sensor inductor being further coupled with a sampling circuit, which in turn connects to a driving circuit; the driving circuit adapted to provide driving signals to the rectifier based on the detected voltage transients by the sensor inductor as taught by Reilly in order to increase efficiency, save energy, prevent converter component degradation and resistor based energy dissipation (e.g., heat loss) and lower cost (Reilly; Par 0058).
In regards to claim 10, Todaka, Imamoto and Reilly disclose the WPT system of claim 9. Reilly further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the sensor inductor (250, 265) is connected to a filter (220) (Par 0029), which in turn connects to the sampling circuit (Par 0039; “controller 275 includes a timing circuit to determine a time delay period after detection of a transient voltage spike”).
In regards to claim 11, Todaka, Imamoto and Reilly disclose the WPT system of claim 10. Reilly further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the filter (220) is a notch filter or a high-pass filter (Par 0029, 0046).
In regards to claim 12, Todaka discloses, in figure 1, a method for phase synchronization between a primary side (10) and a secondary side (20) of a wireless power transfer (WPT) system (wireless power transfer system of power transmission apparatus 10 and power reception apparatus 20) with a series compensation structure (Par 0052-0053, 0056), the WPT system comprising an inverter (12) at the primary side (10) (Par 0050) and an active rectifier (22) at the secondary side (20) (Par 0050-0051, 0139).
Todaka does not disclose the method comprising: a) detecting, at the secondary side, voltage transients by a sensor inductor.
However, Imamoto discloses, in figure 1, the method comprising: a) detecting, at the secondary side (secondary side 20 as discussed in Todaka), voltage transients by a sensor inductor (sensor coil 4) (Par 0064; “the transient voltage actually detected by a sensor coil 4 during the course of disappearance of the magnetic field is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux density B with respect to time”).
Thus, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit by including detecting, at the secondary side, voltage transients by a sensor inductor as taught by Imamoto in order to detect transient voltages which reduces the voltage to safe levels and protects the circuit (Imamoto; Par 0064).
Todaka and Imamoto does not disclose b) sampling the detected voltage transients; and c) controlling an operation of the active rectifier based on the detected voltage transients.
However, Reilly discloses, in figure 2, b) sampling the detected voltage transients (Par 0039; “controller 275 includes a timing circuit to determine a time delay period after detection of a transient voltage spike”); and c) controlling an operation of the active rectifier (22 as taught by Todaka) based on the detected voltage transients (Par 0039-0041; controller 275 provides driving signals to switch 280 based on detected voltage transients spikes, thus the controller 275 provide driving signals to the active rectifier 22 taught by Todaka when combined).
Thus, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit by including b) sampling the detected voltage transients; and c) controlling an operation of the active rectifier based on the detected voltage transients as taught by Reilly in order to increase efficiency, save energy, prevent converter component degradation and resistor based energy dissipation (e.g., heat loss) and lower cost (Reilly; Par 0058).
In regards to claim 13, Todaka, Imamoto and Reilly disclose the method of claim 12. Reilly further discloses, in figure 2, further comprises a step of filtering the detected voltage transients from the sensor inductor by a filter (220) (Par 0029, 0046).
In regards to claim 14, Todaka, Imamoto and Reilly disclose the method of claim 13. Reilly further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the filter (220) is a notch filter or a high-pass filter (Par 0029, 0046).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todaka et al. (US 2020/0280213 A1) in view of Imamoto et al. (US 2004/0232909 A1) in further view of Reilly et al. (US 2011/0133557 A1) in further view of Yu et al. (US 2016/0189855 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Todaka, Imamoto and Reilly disclose the method of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the sensor inductor comprises a magnetic ring.
However, Yu discloses, in figure 2, wherein the sensor inductor (sensor coil 4 as discussed in Imamoto) comprises a magnetic ring (magnetic ring 4) (Par 0031-0034).
Thus, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit with Imamoto’s sensor inductor by including wherein the sensor inductor comprises a magnetic ring in order to improve production efficiency, and lower labor costs (Yu; Par 0044).
In regards to claim 16, Todaka, Imamoto, Reilly and Yu disclose the method of claim 15. Yu further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the magnetic ring (4) is wound with a multiturn coil (Par 0032, 0037).
In regards to claim 17, Todaka, Imamoto, Reilly and Yu disclose the method of claim 15. Yu further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the magnetic ring (4) is a nickel-zinc magnetic ring (Par 0034).
In regards to claim 18, Todaka, Imamoto, Reilly and Yu discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the magnetic ring has a magnetic permeability of 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for wherein the magnetic ring has a magnetic permeability of 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, 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 Todaka’s power reception resonant circuit with Imamoto’s sensor inductor by including wherein the magnetic ring has a magnetic permeability of 100 in order to improve production efficiency, and lower labor costs (Yu; Par 0044).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX WONG LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3409. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)-270-7101. 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.
/ALEX W LAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights