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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Woo (US 2020/0076232) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn. However, a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Woo is entered. Applicant argues Woo does not teach the claimed alloy composition. However, Woo teaches the alloy contains all three of iron, cobalt, or nickel (¶¶ 2, 100, 101). Such an alloy contains between 0% and 100% of each element. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Applicant has not presented any argument or evidence which would rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Graham in view of Woo have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues Graham in view of Woo does not teach or make obvious a metallic layer having the claimed composition. However, Woo teaches the alloy contains all three of iron, cobalt, or nickel (¶¶ 2, 100, 101). Such an alloy contains between 0% and 100% of each element. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Applicant has not rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed alloy composition.
Applicant did not present additional substantive arguments with respect to the prior art rejections in view of secondary references. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Woo teaches a wireless charging device comprising a coil (¶ 92). The coil comprises an electrically conductive magnetically insulative first layer (corresponding to the claimed coil wire) and a magnetically conductive second layer bonded to the first layer (corresponding to the metallic layer) (¶ 2-3). The first layer may be copper (¶¶ 2, 103). The second layer may be an alloy of all three of iron, cobalt, or nickel (¶¶ 2, 100, 101). Such an alloy contains between 0% and 100% of each element. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 6, Woo teaches the coil is a single strand (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 21, Woo teaches an adhesive layer in the device (¶ 7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Samuelsson et al. (US 2018/0086211).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed above. Woo does not expressly disclose multi-strand wire. Samuelsson teaches a wireless charging device (¶ 6), where the coil is made from multiple strands of wire (¶ 45). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a multi-strand wire, as taught by Samuelsson, in the wireless charging device of Woo because Samuelsson teaches that multiple strands negate the skin effect which occurs at high frequency (¶ 45).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Luzinski et al. (US 2018/0343042).
Regarding claims 8-9, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed above. Woo does not expressly teach a diameter of the wire. Luzinski teaches a wireless charging device (¶ 6) comprising a coiled wire (¶ 49). Luzinski teaches the diameter of the wire ranges from 10 to 100,000 µm (¶ 105). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless charging device of Woo to have a wire diameter as taught by Luzinski because the prior art recognizes this wire diameter as suitable for the purpose of a wireless charging device. The prior art combination teaches a diameter that overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2020/0083736) in view of Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Graham teaches a wireless charging device comprising a coil (¶ 22). The wire of the coil has a plating of a ferromagnetic material such as an alloy of iron and nickel (¶ 20). Graham does not expressly teach an iron alloy containing nickel and cobalt for the plating alloy.
Woo teaches a wireless charging device comprising a coil (¶ 92). The coil comprises a magnetically conductive second layer bonded to the coil (¶¶ 2-3), where the second layer is an alloy of any two or all three of iron, cobalt, or nickel (¶¶ 2, 100-101). Such an alloy contains between 0% and 100% of each element. This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use known Fe-Ni alloys, including a Fe-Ni-Co alloy as taught by Woo, for the plating of ferromagnetic material in Graham because the prior art recognizes these are suitable materials for a coil plating in a wireless charging device and there is an expectation of success in substituting known elements in the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Graham teaches the wire is electrically conductive and magnetically permeable (¶ 4), which are properties of metal.
Regarding claim 6, the wire of Graham is a single strand (¶ 49, see also Fig. 7A).
Regarding claims 17-18, Graham teaches the thickness of the plated alloy is about 1-1.5 µm (¶ 48), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Graham teaches an adhesive layer in the wireless charging device (¶ 40).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2020/0083736) in view of Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jenwatanavet et al. (US 2013/0141037).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Graham does not expressly teach the wire is copper. Jenwatanavet discloses a wireless charging device (¶ 4) comprising a coiled wire made of copper (¶ 31). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use copper as the material for the wire of Graham because the prior art recognizes copper as an electrically conductive material suitable for forming the coil in a wireless charging device, as taught by Jenwatanavet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2020/0083736) in view of Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Samuelsson et al. (US 2018/0086211).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed above. Graham does not expressly disclose multi-strand wire. Samuelsson teaches a wireless charging device (¶ 6), where the coil is made from multiple strands of wire (¶ 45). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a multi-strand wire, as taught by Samuelsson, in the wireless charging device of Graham because Samuelsson teaches that multiple strands negate the skin effect which occurs at high frequency (¶ 45).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2020/0083736) in view of Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232), as applied to claim 4, further in view of Luzinski et al. (US 2018/0343042).
Regarding claims 8-9, the limitations of claim 4 have been addressed above. Graham does not expressly teach a diameter of the wire. Luzinski teaches a wireless charging device (¶ 6) comprising a coiled wire (¶ 49). Luzinski teaches the diameter of the wire ranges from 10 to 100,000 µm (¶ 105). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless charging device of Graham to have a wire diameter as taught by Luzinski because the prior art recognizes this wire diameter as suitable for the purpose of a wireless charging device. The prior art combination teaches a diameter that overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2020/0083736) in view of Woo et al. (US 2020/0076232), as applied to claim 1, further in view of McMullen et al. (US 4,053,373)
Regarding claim 25, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Graham does not expressly teach electroplating the iron-nickel alloy on the coil. However, electroplating is a type of plating, and McMullen teaches it is known to electroplate iron-nickel alloys. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to electroplate iron-nickel alloys on the coil of Graham, as suggested by McMullen, because the prior art recognizes electroplating is a method of plating iron-nickel with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784