Marc Sousa et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 16, 201914263689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/263,689 04/28/2014 Marc Sousa ACT-052 2624 47713 7590 07/16/2019 IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS P.O. BOX 607 Pleasanton, CA 94566 EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/16/2019 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARC SOUSA and MARK CIERI ____________ Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed April 28, 2014, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated August 9, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed January 16, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated May 23, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed July 27, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 2 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20.3 We REVERSE. The invention relates “to the operation and design of inductive charging systems, and more particularly, to the operation and design of a quality of charge detector for use in inductive charging systems.” Spec. ¶ 1. Inductive charging, or “wireless charging,” uses an electromagnetic field to transfer energy between two devices, such as a charging station and the batteries in a mobile phone or an electric vehicle. Id. ¶ 2. During inductive charging, a device with a secondary inductor or coil is positioned close to a charging base station that utilizes a primary inductor or coil to create an alternating electromagnetic field. Id. ¶ 3. The secondary inductor takes power from the electromagnetic field based on received signal strength, and converts it back into electrical current that can be used to charge a battery. Id. The signal strength received by the charging device is dependent on the position of the device relative to the primary inductor, and determines the overall rate of energy transfer. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. A quality of charge (QoC) metric . . . characterizes the overall power transfer from the charging station to the charge receiving device. A higher QoC metric indicates higher efficiency that will result in shorter battery charge time and a lower QoC metric indicates lower efficiency that results in longer battery charge time. Id. ¶ 5. 2 The Appellant is the Applicant, Active-Semi, Inc., also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 3 The inventive apparatus includes a QoC detector for detecting a QoC metric associated with an inductive power transfer between an inductive charging device and a receiving device, and an indicator for displaying the energy transfer to a user. Id. ¶ 9. From the information shown on the indicator, the device user can decide whether an adjustment to the relative positions of the inductive charging device and the receiving device is needed to increase the QoC metric, thereby increasing the energy transfer and shortening battery charge time. Id. Figure 1, as annotated by the Appellant (Reply Br. 6), is reproduced below. Figure 1, above, “shows an inductive charging device that includes an exemplary embodiment of a QoC detector” (Spec. ¶ 14), and is annotated to identify the inductor, the external device, the quality detector, and the indicator. During operation, a user places charge receiving device 116 (the external device) on charging surface 104 of inductive charging device 102 Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 4 such that Rx coil 118 of the external device and Tx coil 106 (the inductor) of charging device 102 align. Id. ¶ 30. Tx controller 108 energizes Tx coil 106 to generate an electromagnetic field that inductively couples to Rx coil 118. Id. The relative positions of Tx coil 106 and Rx coil 118 determine the signal strength experienced by Rx coil 118. Id. Rx controller 120 uses the energy received by Rx coil 118 to charge local batteries or simply to operate charge receiving device 116. Id. Rx controller 120 also sends messages back to Tx controller 108 indicating received signal strength or other values associated with the energy transfer. Id. Tx controller 108 passes the information in the messages, along with other parameters, to QoC detector 112 (the quality detector). Id. QoC detector 112 performs an algorithm using the received information to determine a QoC metric that describes the energy transfer between Tx controller 108 and Rx receiver 116, and outputs the QoC metric to indicator 114 (the indicator) that is visible to the user. Id. ¶ 31. The information shown in indicator 114 allows the user to reposition charge receiving device 116 on charging surface 104 until the largest or optimum QoC metric is obtained. Id. ¶ 33. Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent. See Appeal Br. 30–33 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. An apparatus, comprising: an inductor that receives a current signal to generate an electromagnetic field during a power transfer to an external device; a quality detector to determine a quality metric associated with the power transfer; and an indicator that indicates multiple states, wherein one of the multiple states indicates the quality metric. Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 5 Id. at 30. The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as follows: 1. claim 1 as anticipated by Moritsuka (US 2014/0339905 A1, published November 20, 2014); 2. claim 1 as anticipated by Nakano (US 2015/0171633 A1, published June 18, 2015); and 3. claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20 as anticipated by Partovi (US 2009/0096413 A1, published April 16, 2009). The respective positions of the Examiner and the Appellant raises the following issue as to each ground of rejection: Has the Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s findings that the applied prior art discloses “a quality metric associated with the power transfer” to an external device (claims 1, 13, 20)? For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the affirmative as to each ground of rejection. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20. Rejection over Moritsuka Moritsuka discloses “a foreign object detection device and a non- contact power transfer device.” Moritsuka ¶ 2. The Examiner found the embodiment described in connection with Moritsuka Figure 13, reproduced below, anticipates claim 1. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 6 Figure 13 is a block diagram of power transmitter 3 that is embedded, e.g., in the ground, a car that includes power receiver 5, and foreign object detector 6 arranged between power transmitter 3 and power receiver 5. Moritsuka ¶¶ 32, 55–56. Power transmitter 3 includes alternating-current power source 31 and power transmitter’s transfer unit 34 (an inductor (Final Act. 3)). Moritsuka ¶ 56. Power receiver 5 (an external device (Final Act. 3)) includes power receiver’s transfer unit 24. Moritsuka ¶ 55. During operation, power transmitter’s transfer unit 34 transfers power to power receiver’s transfer unit 24, installed on the bottom face of the car or near taillights or headlights of the car. Id. ¶¶ 57–58. “The power received by the power receiver’s transfer unit 24 is converted into direct current by the rectifier circuit 25, and its voltage is controlled by the control circuit 26, and finally charged in the secondary battery 21.” Id. ¶ 57. If, during power transfer, a foreign object that hinders power receiver 5 from receiving power from Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 7 power transmitter 3 is detected by foreign object detector 6 (a quality detector (Final Act. 3)), wireless communication unit 35 in foreign object detection device 1 (not shown) notifies wireless communication unit 22 in the car, and power control signal generator 7 (an indicator (id.)) “generates a power control signal for controlling the power transmitted from the power transmitter 3.” Moritsuka ¶¶ 32, 60. Further, when a foreign object is detected by the foreign object detector 6, the power controller 4 reduces the power to be transmitted by stopping the operation of the high-frequency inverter circuit 33 in the power transmitter 3, lowering operating frequency of the high-frequency inverter circuit 33, or by controlling the phase of the gate signal of the high frequency inverter circuit 33. Id. ¶ 60. The Examiner’s position is that foreign object detector 6 determines a quality metric associated with the power transfer because power controller 4 stops power transfer when a foreign object is detected (Ans. 16), i.e., “the quality metric is a control function (e.g. stopping the power transfer from the power transmitter)” (id. at 17). The Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is based on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim 1 limitation “a quality metric associated with the power transfer.” Reply Br. 5. According to the Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon review of the Specification, would understand that “the ‘quality metric associated with the power transfer’ limitation refers to quality of power transferred to an external device.” Id. at 6. The Appellant contends the output of Moritsuka’s “foreign object detector 6 is binary – either an object is detected or no object[] is detected.” Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant argues that the presence of a foreign object may affect power transfer quality, but “[b]ecause [Moritsuka’s] Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 8 foreign object detector 6 . . . does not detect the quality of power transfer between transmitter 34 and receiver 24,” foreign object detector 6 is not “a quality detector that determines a quality metric associated with power transfer to an external device” as required by claim 1. Id. at 6–7. During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In construing claim terms, we look first to the language of the claims. The language of the independent claims does not further specify what is meant by “a quality metric associated with the power transfer.” From the dependent claims, it is clear that this phrase encompasses “power efficiency” (claim 2), and a value calculated from “a ratio of the received signal power and the ping power level” (claim 4) or “a ratio of the received signal power and the first power level [input to the inductor to generate the electromagnetic field]” (claim 6). Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims Appendix); see 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“[A] claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.”). We turn next to the written description, which discloses that [t]he rate of energy transfer can greatly affect the length of time necessary to charge a device’s battery. The signal strength determined from the relative positions of the primary and secondary inductors determines the overall rate of energy transfer. A quality of charge (QoC) metric can be determined that characterizes the overall power transfer from the charging station to the charge receiving device. Spec. ¶ 5 (emphasis added). According to the written description, “a simple on/off indicator to indicate whether or not a device’s battery is charging . . . Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 9 provides no information to the user about the QoC. As a result, a device user may not know anything about the rate of energy transfer to the receiving device or the overall battery charge time.” Id. ¶ 7. The written description states that a goal of the invention is to provide a mechanism that quickly determines a QoC metric during induction charging, and provides notification of the QoC metric to a user to allow the user to reposition a charge receiving device on the charging surface to increase the QoC metric and thereby increase energy transfer and decrease or minimize battery charge time. Id. ¶ 8. The written description discloses the use of algorithms “to determine a QoC metric that describes the energy transfer” between the controller and receiver. Id. ¶ 31; see also id. ¶¶ 45, 68, 74. Based on the above disclosure, as well as our review of the Specification in its entirety, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase “a quality metric associated with the power transfer” is a measure of a quality of the power transfer, e.g., rate or efficiency of the power transfer. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this claim language does not encompass a binary state that merely indicates the existence or absence of power transfer. Because the Examiner has not identified a teaching in Moritsuka of a detector for measuring quality of the power transfer, we do not sustain this ground of rejection. Rejection over Nakano Nakano discloses an “apparatus for detecting the presence of undesirable foreign matter in a region between a wireless power transmission apparatus and a power reception apparatus.” Nakano, at [57]. Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 10 The Examiner found claim 1 reads on Nakano’s Figure 5 power transmission apparatus and Figure 7 power reception apparatus. See Final Act. 4–5. The Appellant contends the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Nakano’s foreign matter detector 46 meets the claim 1 limitation of “a quality detector to determine a quality metric associated with the power transfer.” Appeal Br. 11. More specifically, the Appellant argues that “foreign matter detector 46 only detects the existence or nonexistence of foreign matter and does not detect the quality of power transfer between power transmission coil L1 and power reception coil L2.” Id. at 12. The Appellant maintains the Examiner’s rejection is based on the same, unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim 1 limitation “quality metric associated with the power transfer” that was applied in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Moritsuka. Reply Br. 5. Based on our interpretation of the claim phrase “quality metric associated with the power transfer” as a measure of a quality of the power transfer, we find the Appellant’s argument persuasive. Accordingly, we do not sustain this ground of rejection. Rejection over Partovi Partovi discloses “[a] portable inductive power source, power device, or unit, for use in powering or charging electrical, electronic, battery- operated, mobile, and other devices or rechargeable batteries.” Partovi ¶ 13. Partovi’s system includes two parts. Id. “The first part is a pad or similar base unit that contains a primary, which creates an alternating magnetic field by means of applying an alternating current to a winding, coil, or any type of current carrying wire.” Id. “The second part of the system is a receiver that comprises a means for receiving the energy from the alternating magnetic Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 11 field from the pad and transferring it to a mobile or other device or rechargeable battery.” Id. Partovi discloses that “[t]he power transfer efficiency between the primary coil and the receiver should be maximized” (id. ¶ 99), and discloses various coil arrangements and materials for enhancing power transfer efficiency (see id ¶¶ 194–226). The Examiner found the embodiment described in connection with Partovi Figure 28, reproduced below, anticipates claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20. Final Act. 5–8. Figure 28 illustrates a charger wherein the primary stage and the receiver stage communicate wirelessly. Partovi ¶ 43. Partovi discloses that: The Charge Management IC typically, for a fully drained battery, will pass on the maximum input current to the battery to enable rapid charging when the battery is at low voltage. This presents a low impedance load to the power supply circuit and requires the power supply to sustain the voltage at the required value while supplying the current. The Charge Management IC is in communication with the MCU2 which also monitors the output voltage (Vout) and tries to maintain Appeal 2018-008019 Application 14/263,689 12 this Vout within a pre-programmed range. This is achieved by MCU2 sending a digital signal to Q2 to modulate the switch. Id. ¶ 262. The Examiner found Partovi’s Charge Management IC and MCU2 function as a quality detector that determines Vout, a quality metric associated with the power transfer. Final Act. 6. Based on our claim interpretation, above, we are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that monitoring of Vout and regulation thereof within a pre-programmed range by Partovi’s Charge Management IC and MCU2 is not a determination of a “quality metric associated with the power transfer,” Vout does not provide a measure of the quality of the power transfer. Accordingly, we do not sustain this ground of rejection. CONCLUSION The Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s findings that each of Moritsuka, Nakano, and Partovi discloses “a quality metric associated with the power transfer” to an external device (claims 1, 13, 20). ORDER Claims Rejected Basis Reference Affirmed Reversed 1 § 102(a)(1) Moritsuka 1 1 § 102(a)(1) Nakano 1 1–6, 10–18, and 20 § 102(a)(1) Partovi 1–6, 10–18, and 20 Outcome 1–6, 10–18, and 20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation