DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 13/939035, with English translation filed on 14 April 2016. The effective filing date of claims supported by the foreign priority document is therefore considered to be 10 July 2012.
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.
Note the Double Patenting issues may be affected by the issues under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, discussed below.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9419478, hereinafter Reference Patent. Claims 2, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 of Reference Patent, further in view of Jin (US2008/0197712). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claims 1, 11, Reference Patent claims 1, 3 teach the recited limitations.
Re claims 3-11, 13-20, Reference Patent claims 1, 3-4 teach the further recited limitations in light of the disclosure.
Re claims 2, 12, Reference Patent claims 1, 3-4 teach the recited limitations except does not specify detecting the foreign object when plurality of consecutive indications are received. Jin, however, teaches that it is known in the art of wireless power transmission systems having foreign object detection for the detection of object to only be confirmed after multiple consecutive measurements meet the threshold requirement, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of invention to modify the Reference Patent claims to incorporate the teachings of Jin by having detection based on plurality of consecutive measurements as recited for purposes of ensuring that the foreign object detection is not inadvertently triggered by a stray measurement and is confirmed by multiple measurements (see Jin: [0224-0225]).
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9762092, hereinafter Reference Patent. Claims 2, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 11 of Reference Patent, further in view of Jin (US2008/0197712). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claims 1, 11, Reference Patent claims 9, 11 teach the recited limitations in light of the disclosure. Note the transmitted power is generally based on the requested power.
Re claims 3-11, 13-20, Reference Patent claims 9, 11 teach the further recited limitations in light of the disclosure.
Re claims 2, 12, Reference Patent claims 9, 11 teach the recited limitations except does not specify detecting the foreign object when plurality of consecutive indications are received. Jin, however, teaches that it is known in the art of wireless power transmission systems having foreign object detection for the detection of object to only be confirmed after multiple consecutive measurements meet the threshold requirement, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of invention to modify the Reference Patent claims to incorporate the teachings of Jin by having detection based on plurality of consecutive measurements as recited for purposes of ensuring that the foreign object detection is not inadvertently triggered by a stray measurement and is confirmed by multiple measurements (see Jin: [0224-0225]).
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10439445, hereinafter Reference Patent. Claims 2, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 of Reference Patent, further in view of Jin (US2008/0197712). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claims 1, 11, Reference Patent claims 1, 3, 5 teach the recited limitations in light of the disclosure. Note the transmitted power is generally based on the requested power.
Re claims 3-11, 13-20, Reference Patent claims 1, 3, 5 teach the further recited limitations in light of the disclosure.
Re claims 2, 12, Reference Patent claims 1, 3, 5 teach the recited limitations except does not specify detecting the foreign object when plurality of consecutive indications are received. Jin, however, teaches that it is known in the art of wireless power transmission systems having foreign object detection for the detection of object to only be confirmed after multiple consecutive measurements meet the threshold requirement, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of invention to modify the Reference Patent claims to incorporate the teachings of Jin by having detection based on plurality of consecutive measurements as recited for purposes of ensuring that the foreign object detection is not inadvertently triggered by a stray measurement and is confirmed by multiple measurements (see Jin: [0224-0225]).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11139698, hereinafter Reference Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claims 1, 11, Reference Patent claims 1-2 teach the recited limitations in light of the disclosure. Note the transmitted power is generally based on the requested power.
Re claims 2-11, 12-20, Reference Patent claims 1-2 teach the further recited limitations in light of the disclosure.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11757309, hereinafter Reference Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claims 1, 11, Reference Patent claims 1-2 teach the recited limitations in light of the disclosure. Note the transmitted power is generally based on the requested power.
Re claims 2-11, 12-20, Reference Patent claims 1-2 teach the further recited limitations in light of the disclosure.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12413103, hereinafter Reference Patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claims 1, 11, Reference Patent claims 16-17 teach the recited limitations in light of the disclosure. Note the transmitted power is generally based on the requested power.
Re claims 2-11, 12-20, Reference Patent claims 16-17 teach the further recited limitations in light of the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11, 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claims 1, 11, the last two paragraphs as currently drafted are somewhat vague regarding relation between operation of detecting foreign object and the second control information (i.e. if the received power refers to the measurement of received power indicated by the second control information), and also may potentially encompass features insufficiently supported by Applicant’s original disclosure (see rejection under 35 USC 112(a)/35 USC 112, first paragraph below). It is generally recommended Applicant amend the claims to address the rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, below, and also ensure the relation between second control information and the operations of the final paragraph/foreign object detection is clearly stated to avoid potential antecedent basis issues and written description issues.
Re claims 10, 20, the claims refer to “the difference between the requested power and the received power”, but insufficient antecedent basis appears to be provided. The claims appear to possibly imply some relation with the foreign object detection based on a difference in claims 1, 11, respectively, and if so, should be amended to clarify intended relationship as appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Reference is made to corresponding PGPUB: US2025/0379475.
Re claims 1, 11 (and claims dependent thereon), the last paragraph as drafted appears to require the wireless power transmission apparatus to detect a foreign object based on a difference between the transmitted power and the received power, but Applicant’s Specification and Drawings do not appear to disclose an embodiment supporting this operation. Applicant’s original disclosure generally describes and supports two main foreign object detection techniques: PGPUB: [0045-0073], Figs. 2-4 relating to the receiver comparing the required power value to measured received power to determine foreign object, and [0096-0112], Figs. 7-8 relating to the receiver comparing the required power value to measured transmitted power communicated from the transmitter. In both cases, a subsequent measurement result, which may take different forms of information (see PGPUB: [0045-0051], [0057-0063] for example) communicates the receiver’s determination/indication to the transmitter of foreign object presence. There appears to be insufficient supporting disclosure of foreign object detection based on the difference between the transmitted power and the received power, rather the determination appears to always be disclosed as being based off a difference with the initially indicated requested power value. Additionally, there appears to be insufficient supporting disclosure of the transmitter calculating/determining difference between values in any of the embodiments, rather the embodiments disclose the receiver making the comparisons and foreign object determination and then notifying the transmitter of the result (it is noted that claims 1 and 10 are somewhat vague as to where the difference is determined, but claims 3 and 13 for example more explicitly recite the transmitter calculating the difference).
Claims 1, 10 (and claims dependent thereon) therefore appear to encompass features that are insufficiently supported by Applicant’s Specification/Drawings, and therefore does not appear to within Applicant’s possession at the time the application was filed. It is recommended Applicant amend the claims to be clearly consistent with the disclosed embodiments and provide appropriate explanation and citation to the Specification/Drawings to demonstrate support of any claimed limitations. Specifically, the disclosed embodiments would appear to only support the reception apparatus determining and corresponding reception power measurement result indicating difference/foreign object detection, and foreign object detection being based on difference between measured received/transmitted power and the requested power value (i.e. similar to features discussed in claim 10, if corrected to recite that foreign object detection is based on the reception power measurement result). Applicant should also consider the relevant prior art rejections that could be applied for the subject matter currently claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bastami (US2013/0094598) in view of Stevens (US2007/0228833).
Re claim 1, Bastami teaches a method of a wireless power transmission apparatus (transmitter <112>; see Bastami: [0018], [0020], [0030], Fig. 3), comprising:
transmitting power to a wireless power reception apparatus (receiver <122>, see Bastami: [0018], [0020], [0030], Fig. 3);
receiving second control information indicative of a measurement of received power at the wireless power reception apparatus (see Bastami: [0044], [0048-0049], Fig. 3 regarding transmitter receiving communication data from receiver indicated the measured output power/received power); and
detecting a foreign object based on a difference between the transmitted power and the received power (see Bastami: [0046], [0048-0050], Fig. 3 regarding detection/absence of foreign object generally based on difference between transmitted power/input power and the received power/output power). See Bastami: [0018], [0020], [0030], [0037], [0043], [0044-0049], [0050], Fig. 3.
Although Bastami generally discloses the receiver controller configured to communicate with the transmitter (see Bastami: [0044], [0049], Fig. 3), Bastami does not explicitly disclose the transmitter receiving first control information indicating a requested power and transmitting power to the receiver based thereon. Stevens, however, teaches that it is known in the field of wireless power transmission systems for receivers to communicate requested power information to the transmitter and subsequent power transmission to be based thereon (see Stevens: [0056], [0157-0158], [0160], [0164], Fig. 4 regarding receiver communicating power requirements to the transmitter for subsequent wireless power transmission). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Bastami to further have the transmitter receive required power information from the receiver and transmitting power based thereon as recited for purposes of providing information on the operating requirements of the receiver so the transmitter may transmit power adjusted according to receiver requirements (see Stevens: [0056], [0157]). See also Objections above regarding current understanding of the claim limitations and potential support issues.
Re claim 3. Bastami in view of Stevens teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the foreign object includes: calculating a lost power based on the first control information and the second control information, and determining that the foreign object is present when the lost power is greater than a threshold value (see Bastami: [0046], [0048-0050], Fig. 3 regarding detection/absence of foreign object generally based on difference between transmitted power/input power and the received power/output power being greater than a threshold; note that the transmitter power/input power is generally based on the first control information which controls the amount of power the transmitter is requested to initially transmit as discussed regarding claim 1 above).
Re claim 4. Bastami in view of Stevens teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: entering a power suspending mode based on the detecting the foreign object, wherein the power suspending mode includes decreasing or stopping wireless transmission of the power (see Bastami: [0050], Fig. 3 regarding transmitter reducing or stopping wireless power transmission in response to detected foreign object).
Re claim 5. Bastami in view of Stevens teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: magnetically coupling a primary coil (coil <333>) of the wireless power transmission apparatus to a secondary coil (coil <353>) of the wireless power reception apparatus; and controlling a driver (inverter <330>) of the primary coil to generate the transmitted power based on the requested power (see Bastami: [0020], [0030-0032], Fig. 3 regarding inductively coupled wireless power transmission driven by inverter; see Stevens: [0056], [0157-0158], [0160], [0164], Fig. 4 and discussion of claim 1 above regarding control of transmitter driver circuit based on requested power).
Re claim 6. Bastami in view of Stevens teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second control information includes at least one of: a measured power value of the measurement of the received power; a value indicating a difference between the requested power and the received power; or an indication whether the received power is greater than or smaller than the requested power (see Bastami: [0044], [0048-0049], Fig. 3 regarding transmitter receiving communication data from receiver indicated the measured output power/received power value; note also that Bastami generally discloses that alternatively the calculation of difference value may also be performed by the receiver and the result communicated to the transmitter).
Re claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second control information includes a reception power measurement result (see Bastami: [0044], [0048-0049], Fig. 3 regarding transmitter receiving communication data from receiver indicated the measured output power/received power value; note that the term “reception power measurement result” is not actually defined or further limited by the claims; note also that Bastami generally discloses that alternatively the calculation of difference value may also be performed by the receiver and the result communicated to the transmitter).
Re claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the reception power measurement result indicates the foreign object is detected (see Bastami: [0044], [0048-0049], Fig. 3 regarding transmitter receiving communication data from receiver indicated the measured output power/received power value for foreign object detection, i.e. generally indicates foreign object; alternatively Bastami discloses that the calculation of difference value may also be performed by the receiver and the result communicated to the transmitter, i.e. the communicated result would indicate foreign object detected).
Re claim 9. The method of claim 7, wherein the reception power measurement result is based on a comparison of the requested power and the received power (see Bastami: [0044], [0048-0049], Fig. 3 regarding the calculation of difference value may also be performed by the receiver and the result communicated to the transmitter, i.e. the communicated result would indicate foreign object detected; see discussion of claim 1 above regarding the transmitted power generally being based on the requested power; see also discussion of allowable claim 10 below regarding explicit recitation of actually performing the specific comparison for foreign object detection which would sufficiently distinguish from prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Re claim 11, the claim recites a wireless power transmission apparatus using essentially the same components operated in the same manner as recited in claims 1 and 5, and is therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above. See rejection of claims 1 and 5 for details. Note that Bastami in view of Stevens discloses corresponding control unit for the operations (control logic <338>, modulator/demodulator <336>, see Bastami: [0030-0032], [0044], [0048-0049], Fig. 3).
Re claims 13-19, as best understood, the further recited method limitations essentially correspond to the same limitations recited in claims 3-9, respectively, and are therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied above.
Claims 2, 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bastami (US2013/0094598) in view of Stevens (US2007/0228833), further in view of Jin (US2008/0197712).
Re claim 2. Bastami in view of Stevens teaches the method of claim 1, whereing detecting the foreign object when second control information indicates a threshold difference between the received power and the transmitted power (see Bastami: [0046], [0048-0050], Fig. 3) but does not explicitly disclose detecting the foreign object when a plurality of consecutively received second control information indicates the difference (note that the claim is broadly recited though, and Bastami: [0046], [0048-0050], Fig. 3 generally implies foreign object entry could cause consecutive receiver output power measurements to continue to indicate the threshold difference). Jin, however, further teaches that it is known in the art of wireless power transmission systems having foreign object detection for the detection of object to only be confirmed after multiple consecutive measurements meet the threshold requirement (see Jin: [0224-0225]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of invention to modify Bastami in view of Stevens to further incorporate the teachings of Jin by having foreign object detection be based on plurality of consecutive measurements indicating the detection condition as recited for purposes of ensuring that the foreign object detection is not inadvertently triggered by a stray measurement and is confirmed by multiple measurements (see Jin: [0224-0225]).
Re claim 12, the further recited limitations essentially correspond to the limitations recited in claim 2, and are therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 20 would potentially be allowable upon addressing the Double Patenting rejections, the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, first paragraph, and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and address the noted Objections. Note this indication would require recitation of the associated limitations consistent with how they are disclosed in Applicant’s Specification/Drawings to address the noted issues under 35 USC 112(a) or first paragraph.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 would potentially be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or render obvious a wireless power transmission apparatus having features of claim 1, 7, 9 and further "wherein the reception power measurement result includes a flag set to a first value when the difference between the requested power and the received power is greater than a threshold ". As discussed above, Bastami, Stevens, and other relevant prior art such as Azancot (US2012/0193993) generally teach wireless power transmitters receiving requested power, and detecting foreign object based on difference between measured transmitted and received power. Although Azancot and Stevens generally suggest the wireless power receiver may request an amount of power to be transmitted, the prior art of record does not sufficiently teach or suggest the wireless power transmitter detecting the foreign object based on receiving a reception power measurement result indicating a difference between the requested power and the measured received power is greater than a threshold, as understood in light of the Specification/Drawings (see also the Objections and 112(a) rejection above). Claim 10, in light of Applicant's Specification and Drawings, would therefore potentially overcome the cited prior art of record upon appropriate resolution of the noted issues.
Claim 20 recites further features corresponding to those recited in claim 10, and therefore would potentially overcome the cited prior art of record by the same reasoning applied claim 10 above.
Conclusion
In summary, it is recommended Applicant address the Double Patenting rejections and amend the claims to clearly and explicitly incorporate the indicated allowable subject matter or similar in a manner consistent with the original disclosure to address the noted issues under 35 USC 112(a), or 35 USC 112 first paragraph, as well as the Objections. Applicant is generally advised to consider the cited prior art of record which continues to teach the broader recited limitations, as best understood, such as transmitters detecting foreign objects by difference between transmitted and received power exceeding a threshold, and also using multiple measurements to confirm detection result. Applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner as needed to discuss possible amendments or the office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights