Ex Parte KAUTZ et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2019

14577457 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/577,457 12/19/2014
28395 7590 02/26/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard William KAUTZ
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83400532 1213
EXAMINER
ZHANG, HAIDONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD WILLIAM KAUTZ and NEVIN AL TUNYURT
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BRIAND. RANGE, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1, 6-9, 12-14, and 16. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Independent claims 1 and 12 illustrate the subject matter on appeal
and are reproduced below with contested language italicized:
1. A power transfer system comprising:
1 Appellant is the applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
November 29, 2017 ("App. Br."), 2.
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
a ferrite pad;
a pair of spaced apart inductive coils positioned
exclusively on a same single side of the ferrite pad; and
a controller configured to, in response to a message
indicating a pole configuration of a corresponding inductive
coil assembly, arrange a switching network to control a
direction of current flow through each of the coils to selectively
operate the coils in a two-pole mode or a three-pole mode.
12. A wireless power transfer system comprising:
an inductive coil assembly including a ferrite pad and no
more than two spaced apart inductive coils on the ferrite pad;
and
a switching network configured to control a direction of
current flow through each of the coils such that the coils
generate a magnetic flux distribution having three poles, and in
response to an indication of coil misalignment, to short one of
the coils.
App. Br. Claims Appendix, 1.
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered June 29, 2017 ("Final Act."), and maintains the rejections in
the Examiner's Answer entered February 6, 2018 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 1 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kuerschner2 in view ofKudo 3;
2 Kuerschner et al., US 2015/0255993 Al, published September 10, 2015
("Kuerschner").
3 Kudo, US 2012/0169139 Al, published July 5, 2012.
2
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
II. Claims 1 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farkas4 in view of Sakakibara5;
III. Claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Ichikawa6 in view ofCovic7; and
IV. Claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Farkas in view of Sakakibara and Martin 8.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Rejections I and II), and reverse
the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Covic (Rejection III), for the reasons
set forth in the Appeal Brief and below. We affirm the Examiner's rejection
of claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Farkas in
view of Sakakibara and Martin (Rejection IV), for the reasons set forth in
the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
Rejection I
Claim 1 requires the recited power transfer system to comprise, in
part, a controller configured to arrange a switching network to control a
4 Farkas, US 2008/0265684 Al, published October 30, 2008.
5 Sakakibara et al., US 2013/0038281 Al, published February 14, 2013
("Sakakibara").
6 Ichikawa et al., US 2015/0372498 Al, published December 24, 2015
("Ichikawa").
7 Covic et al., US 2013/0285463 Al, published October 31, 2013 ("Covic").
8 Martin, US 2012/0095617 Al, published April 19, 2012.
3
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
direction of current flow through each of a pair of inductive coils to
selectively operate the coils in a two-pole mode or a three-pole mode, in
response to a message indicating a pole configuration of a corresponding
inductive coil assembly.
The Examiner finds that Kuerschner does not disclose a controller
configured as recited in claim 1, and the Examiner relies on Kudo to address
this feature. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that Kudo discloses
"controlling alternating currents whose phases are mutually in phase or in
reversed phases flow to coils 103a and 103b" in response to selection of an
in-phase or reversed-phase signal. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2-3 (citing Kudo
,r,r 35-37, 41, 43; Figs. 1-3). The Examiner finds that this disclosure in
Kudo corresponds to a controller configured to, in response to a message
indicating a pole configuration of a corresponding inductive coil assembly,
arrange a switching network configured to control a direction of current flow
through each of the coils to selectively operate the coils in a two-pole mode
or a three-pole mode, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2-3.
On this appeal record, however, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to support the Examiner's finding that the relied-upon
disclosures in Kudo correspond to the limitation at issue in claim 1, for
reasons expressed by Appellant (App. Br. 2-3; Reply Br. 2), and discussed
below.
Kudo discloses a wireless power transmission apparatus that includes
power receiving coil 106, first and second power transmission coils 103a,
103b, and phase control unit 104. ,r,r 29-30, 35; Fig. 1. Kudo discloses that
phase control unit 104 controls phase shifters 102a, 102b that function to
place a first phase of alternating current flowing in first power transmitting
4
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
coil 103a, and a second phase of alternating current flowing in second power
transmitting coil 103b, either in phase, or in reversed phase. ,r 35; Fig. 2.
Kudo discloses that phase control unit 104 includes in-phase control unit
104b that exercises the in-phase control, reversed-phase control unit 104c
that exercises the reversed-phase control, and selection unit 104a that
determines which of in-phase control unit 104b or reversed-phase control
unit 104c should exercise control. ,r 36; Fig. 2.
The Examiner does not identify disclosure in Kudo that indicates, or
would have suggested, that phase control unit 104 or selection unit 104a
responds to a message indicating a pole configuration of a corresponding
inductive coil assembly to control a direction of current flow through first
and second power transmission coils 103a, 103b. As Appellant correctly
argues, a command by selection unit 104a for in-phase control unit 104b or
reversed-phase control unit 104c to exercise control is not a message
indicating a pole configuration of a corresponding inductive coil assembly,
because a corresponding coil assembly is not necessary for selection unit
104a to issue its commands. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner, therefore, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
establish that the combined disclosures of Kuerschner and Kudo would have
suggested a power transfer system comprising a controller configured to
arrange a switching network to control a direction of current flow through
each of a pair of inductive coils to selectively operate the coils in a two-pole
mode or a three-pole mode, in response to a message indicating a pole
configuration of a corresponding inductive coil assembly, as required by
claim 1.
5
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kuerschner in view of Kudo,
and also of claims 6-9, which each depend from claim 1.
Rejection II
The Examiner finds that Farkas does not disclose a power transfer
system comprising a controller configured to arrange a switching network to
control a direction of current flow through each of a pair of inductive coils to
selectively operate the coils in a two-pole mode or a three-pole mode, in
response to a message indicating a pole configuration of a corresponding
inductive coil assembly, and the Examiner relies on Sakakibara to address
this feature of claim 1. Final Act. 7-9.
The Examiner finds that Sakakibara discloses a switching network
formed by switching elements QI to Q4, and discloses that a "three-pole
mode ... is formed because of current flow in [the] same direction which
generated three flux poles," while a two-pole configuration would be
produced by "having different directions of current flow in corresponding
coils" according to the right-hand rule. Final Act. 7 ( citing Sakakibara
if 139; Figs. 8, 13, 20).
Appellant argues that "although Sakakibara has switching elements
( e.g., QI, Q4) and purportedly operates its coils in a three-pole
configuration," nothing in Sakakibara would have suggested that a
controller, in response to receiving a message indicating a two-pole or three-
pole configuration of a corresponding coil assembly, "arranges a switching
network to selectively control a direction of current flow through coils to
achieve a two-pole mode or three-pole mode as needed." App. Br. 3.
6
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds in the
Answer that Sakakibara discloses "the operation of two coils in a two-pole
mode or a three pole mode" when "currents flow through coils C 1 and C2
are same phase having same direction of current flow; and currents flow
through coils C 1 and C2 are opposite phase having opposite directions of
current flow." Ans. 4 (citing Sakakibara ,r,r 107-112; Figs. 11 and 12). The
Examiner finds that Sakakibara discloses that the electric field intensity and
electric power generated by the coils are different when the coils operate in
different pole configurations. Ans. 4 ( citing Sakakibara ,r 112; Figs. 11 and
12).
As Appellant correctly argues (App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 2), however,
the Examiner does not explain how the relied-upon portions of Sakakibara
disclose, or would have suggested, a controller configured to arrange a
switching network to control a direction of current flow through each of a
pair of inductive coils to selectively operate the coils in a two-pole mode or
a three-pole mode, in response to a message indicating a pole configuration
of a corresponding inductive coil assembly, as recited in claim 1.
Sakakibara discloses a non-contact power supply system for a vehicle
that includes a coil unit. ,r,r 2, 12, 60; Fig. 1. The portion of Sakakibara
cited by the Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 7) describes a power
supply system comprising inverter 220A that includes switching elements
QI to Q4. ,r 139. Sakakibara discloses that inverter 220A coverts DC power
received from power conditioner 215 to AC power, and supplies the AC
power to primary electromagnetic induction coil 230. Id. Sakakibara
discloses that inverter 220A also coverts AC power transmitted from vehicle
7
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
1 OOB by electromagnetic resonance to DC power, and supplies the DC
power to power conditioner 215. Id.
The portion of Sakakibara cited by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans.
4) describes electromagnetic fields generated by a two-coil, coil unit when
electric current flows through the coils, and indicates that the electric field
intensity, and power generated due to the electric field intensity, differ when
the phases of the electromagnetic fields generated are the same or are
opposite. ,r,r 107-112; Figs. 11 and 12.
On this appeal record, the Examiner does not explain how these
disclosures in Sakakibara describe, or would have suggested, a controller
configured as recited in claim 1. The Examiner, therefore, does not provide
a sufficient factual basis to establish that the combined disclosures of Farkas
and Sakakibara would have suggested a power transfer system as recited in
claim 1.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Farkas in view of Sakakibara, and also
of claims 6-9, which each depend from claim 1.
Rejection III
Claim 12 requires the recited wireless power transfer system to
comprise, in part, a switching network configured to short one of two
inductive coils in response to an indication of coil misalignment.
The Examiner finds that Ichikawa does not disclose shorting one of
two inductive coils in response to an indication of coil misalignment, and the
Examiner relies on Covic to address this feature of claim 12. Final Act. 11.
The Examiner finds that Covic discloses "in response to an indication of coil
8
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
misalignment, to short one of the coils" as recited in claim 12. Final Act. 11
(citing Covic ,r,r 47, 57, and 58; Figs. 2, 3 and 8).
The Examiner, however, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
support the Examiner's finding that the relied-upon disclosures in Covic
correspond to the limitation at issue in claim 12, for reasons expressed by
Appellant (App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3) and discussed below.
Covic discloses a power transfer system comprising a power
transmitting device that includes a power transmitting coil configured to
contactlessly transmit electric power to a power receiving coil, a power
receiving device including a power receiving coil configured to contactlessly
receive electric power from a power transmitting coil, and a switching
device. ,r,r 7, 8, 11.
Covic discloses an embodiment of the power transfer system that
includes a bi-polar receiver pad (BPRP) comprising receiver coils 801, 802,
switch 809 used to regulate power to a load, and optional switches 812,813.
,r,r 7, 8, 11, 47; Fig. 8. Covic discloses that if switch 812 or 813 is used to
decouple either coil, only the coil that is not decoupled will provide usable
power to the load. ,r 58. Covic further discloses that when the coils are
parallel tuned, misalignment is detected by activating decoupling switch 809
to decouple both coils, and sensing the magnitude and phase of the AC short
circuit current in one of the coils with respect to the other, and when the
coils are series tuned, misalignment is determined by decoupling both
receiver coils with switch 809 and measuring the magnitude and phase of the
open circuit voltage of the coils. ,r 57; Fig. 8.
As Appellant correctly argues in the Appeal Brief, Covic thus
discloses decoupling switch 809, which shorts both coils, and measuring the
9
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
AC short circuit current in one of the coils relative to the other coil, or
measuring the magnitude and phase of the open circuit voltage of the coils,
to detect whether the coils are misaligned, rather than shorting one of the
coils in response to first detecting coil misalignment. App. Br. 5.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds in the
Answer that Covic discloses activating AC switch 812 or 813 "when
determining that only one coil is providing all the useable power." Ans. 5
( citing Covic ,r 58; Figs. 2 and 8). The Examiner finds that "determining
that only one coil is providing all the usable power indicates that the other
coil is not powered because ... no power transferring has occurred,
activating AC switch 812 shorts coil 801, and activating AC switch 813
shorts coil 802, when coil is not aligned completely, no power transferring
occurs." Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it therefore would have been
obvious "to short a coil that is not transferring power because of
misalignment to prevent[] potential undesired operation errors in order to
further improve safety and accuracy in charging the vehicle." Id.
As Appellant correctly argues in the Reply Brief, however, Covic
discloses activating switch 812 or 813 to short one of coils 801 or 802,
resulting in only one of coils 801, 802 providing all of the useable power to
a load, and does not disclose activating switch 812 or 813 (shorting one of
the coils) in response to first determining that only one of the coils is
providing all of the useable power to the load ( due to misalignment), as the
Examiner asserts. Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, on this appeal record, the Examiner does not identify
any disclosure in Covic that describes or would have suggested shorting one
of coils 801, 802 by activating switch 812 or 813 in response to an indication
10
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
of coil misalignment. The Examiner therefore does not provide a sufficient
factual basis to establish that the combined disclosures of Ichikawa and
Covic would have suggested a wireless power transfer system comprising a
switching network configured to short one of two inductive coils in response
to an indication of coil misalignment, as required by claim 12.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Covic, and
also of claims 13 and 14, which each depend from claim 12.
Rejection IV
The Examiner finds that a combination of Farkas and Sakakibara does
not disclose shorting one of two inductive coils in response to an indication
of coil misalignment, and the Examiner relies on Martin for suggesting this
feature of claim 12. Final Act. 14.
Martin discloses vehicle 22 provided with charging port 34 configured
to receive an inductive charging current from charging pad 32 in external
power supply 28. ,r 6, 20-22; Fig. 1. Martin discloses that external power
supply 28 includes primary coil 78 disposed in charging pad 32 and
connected to power source 30, while vehicle charging port 34 includes
secondary coil 80 connected to AC charger 76 for main battery 50. ,r 32;
Fig. 2. Martin discloses that power source 30 supplies primary coil 78 with
a current to establish a magnetic field about primary coil 78. Id. Martin
discloses electromagnetically coupling secondary coil 80 to primary coil 78
by aligning charging port 34 with charging pad 32, which places secondary
coil 80 within the magnetic field established about primary coil 78, and
induces a current in secondary coil 80 that charges vehicle main battery 50
via charger 76. Id.
11
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
Martin discloses that external power supply 28 includes external
controller 82 that communicates with charging pad 32 to control the
electrical power provided to vehicle 22. ,r,r 33, 34. Martin discloses that
external controller 82 communicates with switches, such as IGBTs9,
between power source 30 and primary coil 78 to only allow current to flow
if certain conditions are met, such as when charging port 34 is within a
predetermined distance from charging pad 32. ,r 34. Martin discloses that
when charging port 34 of vehicle 22 is not aligned with charging pad 32, the
vehicle does not receive electrical power from power supply 28, and when
charging port 34 of vehicle 22 is aligned with charging pad 32, the vehicle
receives electrical power from power supply 28. ,r,r 22, 73, 89; Figs. 9 and
10.
In view of these disclosures in Martin, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to short primary coil 78 using a switch as
disclosed in Martin to stop current from flowing through primary coil 78
when misalignment occurs between primary coil 78 and secondary coil 80--
such as when the vehicle leaves the charging station-and to use the switch
to restore the connection between power source 30 and primary coil 78 when
the vehicle enters the charging station and vehicle charging port 34 is
aligned with charging pad 32. Ans. 6-7.
Appellant argues that "although Martin does not begin charging if
charging port 34 is not aligned with charging pad 32," this would not have
suggested "that Martin shorts a coil in response to such misalignment."
9 As would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, IGBTs
are insulated gate bipolar transistors, which are three-terminal
semiconductor switching devices. See, e.g., https://www.electronics-
tutorials.ws/power/insulated-gate-bipolar-transistor.html.
12
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
App. Br. 5. Appellant argues that Martin simply does not activate its
charging apparatus until a vehicle is properly docked with the docking
station, which would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
contemplate shorting a coil. Id.
Contrary to Appellant's arguments, however, Martin's disclosure of a
switch between power source 30 and primary coil 78 controlled by external
controller 82 to only allow current to flow if charging port 34 is within a
predetermined distance from charging pad 32, would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art that the switch would stop the flow of current
between power source 30 and primary coil 78----or short primary coil 78-
when charging port 34 is misaligned with charging pad 32, such as when
vehicle 22 moves away from or exits external power supply 28. KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ([A]n obviousness analysis
"need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for [ an examiner] can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.");
see also In re Preda, 401 F. 2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In assessing the
content of the applied prior art, "it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." (citation
omitted)).
Accordingly, although one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Martin's disclosures to indicate that Martin's charging apparatus
would not be activated until a vehicle is properly docked with the docking
station as Appellant asserts, one of ordinary skill in the art nonetheless also
would have understood Martin's disclosures to suggest that external
13
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
controller 82 would deactivate Martin's charging apparatus-by shorting
primary coil 78 via a switch-when misalignment occurs between primary
coil 78 and secondary coil 80, such as when a vehicle exists the docking
station ( or moves away from external power supply 28), corresponding to a
switching network configured to short an inductive coil in response to an
indication of coil misalignment, as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that Martin "does not contemplate
the use of three-terminal switches" as discussed by the Examiner in the
Answer (Ans. 6-7), and Appellant asks "why would one of ordinary skill
have been motivated to increase the switching complexity of Martin to
include a three-terminal switch when Martin acts only to tum on when the
vehicle is properly docked, and remain off otherwise." Reply Br. 3.
As discussed above (see Footnote 9), however, Martin explicitly
indicates that insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs ), which are three-
terminal switches, are suitable switches for use between power source 30
and primary coil 78. ,r 34. Accordingly, use of such switches would not
"increase the switching complexity of Martin" as Appellant asserts. And as
also discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that the switches could be used to stop current flow between power source
30 and primary coil 78 (or short coil 78) when vehicle 22 leaves external
power supply 28 and misalignment occurs between coil 78 and secondary
coil 80.
Accordingly, considering the totality of the evidence relied-upon in
this appeal, a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. We therefore sustain the Examiner's
14
Appeal 2018-004886
Application 14/577 ,457
rejection of 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Farkas in
view of Sakakibara and Martin.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 12 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Farkas in view of Sakakibara and
Martin. We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 6-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, and reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Covic.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15