DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al US 20190097450 in view of Madala (US 2021/0376715)
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a wireless power transmitting device configured to provide wireless power to a wireless power receiving device (power transmitter and associated power receiver; Fig. 1), comprising:
wireless power transmitting circuitry having an inverter (power conversion circuitry comprising the main half-bridge inverter and an associated sub half-bridge inverter; ¶ [0152]), a wireless power transmitting coil (coil within coil cell 12060 (tel:12060); ¶ [0152]), and a sensor (current sensor 12050; ¶ [0152]), wherein the inverter is configured to receive a clock signal and supply corresponding alternating-current drive signals to the wireless power transmitting coil (main and sub PWM signals applied to the inverter circuitry to generate the AC waveform driving the coil cell; ¶ [0152]), and wherein the sensor is configured to sense an output characteristic of the inverter (current through the transmitting coil, with the sensor positioned between the coil cell and its associated sub half-bridge inverter; Fig. 17); and control circuitry (communications and control unit 12020 controlling the inverter and its PWM drive signal; ¶ [0151]).
Park does not expressly teach frequency dithering the clock signal by determining a modulating waveform based at least partly on information from the sensor and modulating the clock signal using that waveform.
Madala is pertinent to this limitation because it addresses adaptive frequency modulation of the clock driving a switching power circuit to reduce electromagnetic interference. Madala teaches control circuitry configured to frequency dither the clock signal (spread-spectrum controller 112 controlling oscillator 116 to provide frequency-varying clock signal 118; ¶ [0019]), wherein frequency dithering comprises determining a modulating waveform based at least partly on information from the sensor (controller 112 determining oscillator control signal 114 from load sense signal 110, which may indicate sensed output current; ¶¶ [0020]–[0021]), and modulating the clock signal using the modulating waveform (ramping control signal 414 varying the frequency of spread-spectrum waveform 412; ¶ [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s control circuitry to apply Madala’s adaptive spread-spectrum modulation to the PWM clock driving Park’s inverter, using the sensed transmitting-coil current as the load-related input for determining the modulation-control waveform. Both circuits drive a load using controlled switching signals, and Park already measures the current delivered through its transmitting coil. Applying Madala’s technique would reduce switching-generated electromagnetic interference as the load condition changes, particularly under lower-load conditions (Madala, ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, Park further teaches a voltage sensor (circuitry monitoring voltage in the primary coil to recover receiver communications; ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to implement the sensor of the modified transmitter using Park’s voltage-monitoring alternative and determine the adaptive modulation-control waveform from that sensed output voltage. Madala likewise teaches providing a voltage-derived load sense signal to its spread-spectrum controller (¶ [0026]). This would permit adaptive frequency modulation using the transmitting-coil voltage already monitored by Park.
Regarding claim 3, Park further teaches that the sensor is a current sensor (current sensor 12050 monitoring current through coil cell 12060 (tel:12060); ¶ [0152]).
Regarding claim 4, Park further teaches that the output characteristic of the inverter is a voltage across the wireless power transmitting coil (primary-coil voltage monitored by the transmitter; ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to use this monitored coil voltage as the sensed output characteristic supplied to the adaptive modulation control introduced from Madala, thereby using Park’s existing voltage measurement to adapt the frequency modulation to the output condition. Madala teaches deriving its modulation-control input from sensed output voltage (¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Park further teaches that the output characteristic of the inverter is a current through the wireless power transmitting coil (current through coil cell 12060 (tel:12060) monitored by current sensor 12050; ¶ [0152]).
Regarding claim 6, Madala further teaches that determining the modulating waveform comprises determining a shape for the modulating waveform (generating control signal 414 with rising and falling ramps defining a triangular waveform; ¶ [0032]).
It would have been obvious to implement the adaptive modulation control added to Park using Madala’s triangular control-waveform shape to distribute switching-generated noise across multiple resolution bandwidths, as taught by Madala (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Park further teaches that the control circuitry is configured to receive data indicating operating characteristics associated with the wireless receiving device (the transmitter requesting receiver-reported received-power or rectified-voltage information; ¶ [0144]).
Regarding claim 10, Park further teaches receiving the data indicating the operating characteristics using the wireless power transmitting coil (receiver load modulation recovered by monitoring current or voltage in the primary coil; ¶ [0074]).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches a wireless power transmitting device configured to provide wireless power to a wireless power receiving device (power transmitter and associated power receiver; Fig. 1), comprising:
wireless power transmitting circuitry having an inverter (power conversion circuitry comprising the main half-bridge inverter and an associated sub half-bridge inverter; ¶ [0152]) and a wireless power transmitting coil (coil within coil cell 12060 (tel:12060); ¶ [0152]), wherein the inverter is configured to receive a clock signal and supply corresponding alternating-current drive signals to the wireless power transmitting coil (main and sub PWM signals applied to the inverter circuitry to generate the AC waveform driving the coil cell; ¶ [0152]); and control circuitry (communications and control unit 12020 controlling the inverter and its PWM drive signal; ¶ [0151]).
Park further teaches controlling the inverter’s duty cycle (inverter producing a pulse waveform having adjustable frequency and duty cycle; ¶ [0073]), but does not expressly teach frequency dithering the clock signal by determining a modulating waveform based at least partly on the inverter’s duty cycle and modulating the clock signal’s frequency using that waveform.
Madala is pertinent because it addresses adapting switching-clock frequency modulation to PWM duty cycle to reduce electromagnetic interference. Madala teaches control circuitry configured to frequency dither the clock signal (spread-spectrum controller 112 controlling oscillator 116 to provide frequency-varying clock signal 118; ¶ [0019]), wherein frequency dithering comprises determining a modulating waveform based at least partly on duty cycle (PWM-to-average-duty-cycle block 306 and decision block 308 selecting the clock driving up/down counter 310, which generates oscillator control signal 114A; ¶ [0030]), and modulating a frequency of the clock signal using that waveform (ramping control signal 414 varying the frequency of spread-spectrum waveform 412; ¶ [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s control circuitry to use Madala’s adaptive spread-spectrum control, providing the duty cycle of Park’s inverter-drive PWM signal as the input used to determine the frequency-modulating waveform. Park already controls that duty cycle, and Madala teaches adapting frequency modulation to switching on-time. This modification would improve electromagnetic-interference reduction under lower-duty-cycle operating conditions (Madala, ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Madala further teaches that determining the modulating waveform comprises determining a shape for the modulating waveform (generating control signal 414 with rising and falling ramps defining a triangular waveform; ¶ [0032]).
It would have been obvious to implement the adaptive modulation control added to Park using Madala’s triangular control-waveform shape to distribute switching-generated noise across multiple resolution bandwidths, as taught by Madala (¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Park further teaches that the control circuitry is configured to receive data indicating operating characteristics associated with the wireless receiving device (the transmitter requesting receiver-reported received-power or rectified-voltage information; ¶ [0144]).
Regarding claim 17, Park further teaches receiving the data indicating the operating characteristics using the wireless power transmitting coil (receiver load modulation recovered by monitoring current or voltage in the primary coil; ¶ [0074]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US20190097450A1) in view of Madala et al. (US20210376715A1), and further in view of Huda et al. (US20100090775A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Park, as modified by Madala, does not expressly teach determining the modulating waveform based partly on the target power-transmission frequency.
However, Huda teaches determining the modulating waveform based at least partly on a target frequency (frequency re-timer 702 uses the input PWM period as the baseline count that is continuously incremented and decremented to produce frequency modulation; ¶0048).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the Park–Madala controller to use Park’s selected inverter-drive frequency as Huda’s baseline for determining the modulation waveform. This would generate frequency excursions relative to the selected power-transmission frequency while retaining Madala’s load-dependent modulation. Huda expressly identifies DC/AC inverters among its applications.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Huda further teaches determining the modulating waveform based at least partly on a target power-transmission frequency for the alternating-current drive signal (baseline-period calculation of frequency re-timer 702, applied to Park’s inverter-drive frequency; ¶0048). The foregoing modification and rationale apply equally to claim 14.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. in view of Madala et al., and further in view of Skinner et al. (WO2012087599A2).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Park, as modified by Madala, does not expressly teach determining the waveform according to an EMI requirement at a frequency of interest.
However, Skinner teaches determining the modulating waveform based at least partly on an electromagnetic-interference requirement at a frequency of interest (the spread profile of Fig. 2A is designed to achieve EMI compliance while suppressing energy in a selected radio channel; description accompanying Figs. 2A–2B, printed page 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to incorporate Skinner’s frequency-selective profile constraints into the Park–Madala controller. Both concern reducing interference from periodic switching or clock signals; the modification would suppress energy in a selected sensitive band while retaining load-dependent waveform determination.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Skinner teaches the same determination based at least partly on an EMI requirement at a frequency of interest (frequency-selective spread profile of Fig. 2A; printed page 2). The foregoing modification and rationale apply equally to claim 15.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. in view of Madala et al., and further in view of the Wireless Power Consortium’s Qi Power Class 0 Specification, Parts 1 and 2, Version 1.2.3.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Park teaches receiving an identification packet containing major and minor version information (¶0095).
The Qi specification expressly teaches received data indicating a communication standard (the Major Version and Minor Version fields identify the specification revision with which the power receiver complies; §5.2.3.8, Table 35, printed page 98).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to implement Park’s receiver-identification packet using these standardized revision fields, enabling its transmitter to identify the receiver’s supported communication revision through the existing communication link.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niizuma in view of Nag
Re Claim 18; Niizuma discloses a wireless power transmitting device configured to provide a wireless power signal to a wireless power receiving device, comprising: wireless power transmitting circuitry having an inverter and a wireless power transmitting coil, wherein the inverter is configured to receive a clock signal and supply corresponding alternating-current drive signals to the wireless power transmitting coil; (See the rejection above) and
Niizuma does not teach:
Frequency dithering of a clock signal
FSK (frequency-shift keying) encoding of data bits
Using a dither pattern with a cycle count that is a submultiple of a data-bit cycle count
Encoding data in the wireless power signal
Nag teaches explicit frequency dithering of a clock signal
¶[0034]: “the dithering clock generator 28 dithers a frequency of the clock signal CLK…”
This is direct disclosure of frequency dithering.
2. Dither pattern applied to switching cycles
¶[0034]: “Dithering the frequency of the charge pump control signal CPC dithers a frequency of the switching output signal SWT.”
This implies a repeating dithering pattern applied over switching cycles.
3. Duty-cycle and waveform-based modulation
¶[0032]–[0034] describe generating ERR and using it to modulate switching behavior.
4. FSK-like behavior
While Nag does not explicitly mention “FSK,” it teaches: multiple discrete switching frequencies, modulation of switching frequency based on a control signal and dithering patterns that shift frequency over defined cycle windows
This is the same mechanism used in FSK, where data is encoded by switching between discrete frequencies.
Thus, Nag teaches:
frequency dithering, cycle-based modulation and discrete frequency switching suitable for FSK encoding
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added the dithering clock generator that dithers the frequency of a clock signal of Nag to the device of Niizuma since Both references address the same technical problem. (Niizuma: minimize loss in wireless power transfer (¶[0040]–[0041]) and Nag reduce noise and improve converter performance via dithering (¶[0034]).)improving power‑conversion efficiency and also since substituting a dithering clock generator for Niizuma’s frequency‑selection logic is straightforward. .
Re Claim 19 and 20; the combination does not disclose of wherein the first number is 256 or 512 and wherein the second number is 32.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first number is 256 or 512 and wherein the second number is 32, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights