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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-5, 7, 10-11, 17, 34, and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka [JP 2012-222961] in view of Takei et al. [JP 2016-039677] and Sullivan et al. [WO 2018/018006].
Regarding Claim 1, Oka shows a resonant coil (Fig. 9 with teachings from Figs. 1-8), comprising:
a plurality of conductors (321, 331, 310) forming a plurality of inductively coupled current loops (Abstract, Paragraph [0040]), the plurality of conductors comprising;
a first conductor (321) having a first end (right end) and a second end (left end), the first end and the second end being separated by a first gap (there should be a first gap between right end and left end of element 321); and
a second conductor (331 or 310) having a third end (right end) and a fourth end (left end), the third end and the fourth end being separated by a second gap (there should be a second gap between right end and left end of element 331 OR there is a second gap between right end and left end of element 310); and
at least one standalone capacitor comprising at least one first capacitor (322) connected to the first end (right end) and the second end (left end) of the first conductor (321).
wherein the at least one standalone capacitor further comprises at least one second standalone capacitor (332) connected to the third end (right end) and the fourth end (left end) of the second conductor (331),
wherein the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor (Paragraph [0024] discloses element 121, which is equivalent to element 321, and element 131, which is equivalent to element 331, are insulated and laminated which can have a dielectric layer separating elements 321, 331).
Oka does not explicitly show in the drawings the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor.
In addition, Takei et al. clearly shows a first conductor (middle element 40 of element 11(1)) having a first end (left end) and a second end (right end), the first end and the second end being separated by a first gap (element 42 corresponding to middle element 40 of element 11(1)); and a second conductor (upper element 40 of element 11(1) or element 40 of element 21(1)) having a third end (left end) and a fourth end (right end), the third end and the fourth end being separated by a second gap (element 42 corresponding to upper element 40 of element 11(1) or element 42 corresponding to element 40 of element 21(1)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first end and the second end being separated by a first gap and the third end and the fourth end being separated by a second gap as taught by Takei et al. for the device as disclosed by Oka to prevent unwanted connection and short circuit and to facilitate connection to a capacitor to achieve desirable operating characteristics where feeds the wireless electric power in an efficient manner (Abstract, Advantage).
Oka in view of Takei et al. does not show in the drawings the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor.
Sullivan et al. shows a resonant coil (Figs. 7-8) clearly showing the resonant coil (600) further comprises a dielectric layer (614(1) or 606(2)) separating the first conductor (610(1) or 612(2)) and the second conductor (612(1) or (610(3), see Figs. 7-8, element 614(1) separating element 610(1) and element 612(1) or element 606(2) separating element 612(2) and element 610(3)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor as taught by Sullivan et al. for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and short circuiting; and promoting efficient use of the conductors with low power loss (Paragraph [0068]); and higher performance, low dielectric loss and low cost (Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, Oka shows the first gap is approximately aligned with the second gap (see Fig. 9, there should be a first gap between right end and left end of element 321 that is approximately aligned with there should be a second gap between right end and left end of element 331).
Takei et al. shows the first gap is approximately aligned with the second gap (see Fig. 2, Paragraph [0016], element 42 corresponding to middle element 40 of element 11(1) approximately aligned with element 42 corresponding to upper element 40 of element 11(1)).
Regarding Claim 3, Oka shows the first conductor (element 321 is equivalent to element 121) and the second conductor (element 331 or 310 is equivalent to element 131 or 110, respectively) are in respective layers of a printed circuit board (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, Oka shows the at least one standalone capacitor (322) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 322 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 322 is part of resonator 320).
Takei et al. shows the at least one standalone capacitor (32) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 32 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 32 is part of resonator 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Oka shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (see Fig. 9, a capacitance between element 321 and element 322 or 310 substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance of element 322, as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Oka reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Takei et al. shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Takei et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Regarding Claim 7, Oka shows the first and second conductors are galvanically isolated from one another (element 321 and element 331 are insulated therefore are galvanically isolated from one another, Paragraphs [0024], [0039]).
Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors are galvanically isolated from one another (middle element 40 of element 11(1) and upper element 40 of element 11(1) or element 40 of element 21(1) are insulated therefore are galvanically isolated from one another, Paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 10, Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors each have a C-shape (Paragraph [0017], see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 11, Oka shows the first and second conductors are planar (Paragraphs [0015], [0024], [0039], see Fig. 9)
Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors are planar (Paragraph [0015], see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Oka shows the first and second conductors are approximately concentric (see Fig. 9, elements 321, 332 are approximately concentric).
Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors are approximately concentric (see Figs. 2-3, elements 40 are approximately concentric).
Regarding Claim 34, Oka in view of Takei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable operating characteristics and increases storing energy capacity. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding Claim 45, Oka shows a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated (element 321 and element 331 are insulated therefore are galvanically isolated from one another, Paragraphs [0024], [0039]) current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 (Abstract, Claim 1) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops.
Regarding Claim 46, Oka shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.8 (Abstract, Claim 1) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/10th the average diameter.
Regarding Claim 47, Oka shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.9 (Abstract, Claim 1) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/15th the average diameter.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sullivan [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0005531].
Regarding Claim 4, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sullivan shows (Fig. 34) the at least one standalone capacitor (3404 or 3406) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 3404 or 3406 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 3404 or 3406 is part of a resonant inductive-capacitive device, Paragraphs [0135], [0146]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to form a resonant device of a desired frequency for desired application such as magnetic hyperthermia or wireless power transfer (Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sullivan shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (Paragraphs [0135], [0146], as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Sullivan reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Regarding Claim 7, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting the first (3602) and second conductors (element 3402 is part of element 2914) are galvanically isolated from one another (Paragraph [0139]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second conductors are galvanically isolated from one another as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short circuit.
Regarding Claim 34, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance.
Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors (3404(2), 3406(2)) of approximately equal capacitance (Paragraph [0141]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics to enhance storing energy capability and better high-frequency performance which facilitate effective capacitance (Paragraph [0141]).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabanillas [U.S. Patent No. 7,154,349].
Regarding Claim 4, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Cabanillas shows (Fig. 34) the at least one standalone capacitor (214 or 224) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 214 or 224 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 214 or 224 is part of resonator 200, Col. 4, Lines 1-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil as taught by Cabanillas for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to form a resonant device of a desired frequency for desired application to achieve good performance (Col. 2, Lines 8-37).
Regarding Claim 5, Cabanillas shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (Col. 5, Lines 35-50, as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Cabanillas reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Regarding Claim 34, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance.
Cabanillas shows (Fig. 3A, 3E, or 5) teaching and suggesting the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors (324, 334 or 524, 534) of approximately equal capacitance (Col. 6, Lines 31-40, Col. 9, Lines 36-54).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance as taught by Cabanillas for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics to enhance storing energy capability and highest resonant frequency performance which facilitate effective capacitance (Col. 8, Lines 62-67 to Col. 9, Lines 1-15).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wichern [U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0053955].
Regarding Claim 17, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Wichern shows (Figs. 1-2) the first and second conductors are approximately concentric (see Figs. 1-2, elements 12, 22 are approximately concentric, Paragraph [0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second conductors are approximately concentric as taught by Wichern for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to achieve an extremely small construction, realizing the object of miniaturizing electric components reducing manufacturing size and cost (Paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabanillas [U.S. Patent No. 7,154,349] and Sullivan [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0005531].
Regarding Claim 45, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Cabanillas shows a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated (see Fig. 3A) current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 (k12=k13=k23=1, Col. 7, Lines 31-39) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops as taught by Cabanillas for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to achieve high power transmission efficiency based on desirable coupling coefficient and to form a resonant device of a desired frequency for desired application to achieve good performance (Col. 2, Lines 8-37).
Moreover, Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops (element 3602 and element 3402 is part of element 2914 are galvanically isolated, Paragraph [0139]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al., Sullivan et al. and Cabanillas to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short circuit.
Regarding Claim 46, Cabanillas shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.8 (k12=k13=k23=1, Col. 7, Lines 31-39) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/10th the average diameter.
Regarding Claim 47, Cabanillas shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.9 (k12=k13=k23=1, Col. 7, Lines 31-39) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/15th the average diameter.
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oka [JP 2012-049714] (hereinafter as “Oka ‘714”) and Sullivan [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0005531].
Regarding Claim 45, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Oka ‘714 shows a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated (see Figs. 1-2 and 9) current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 (Abstract, Paragraph [0007]) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops as taught by Oka ‘714 for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan et al. to achieve high power transmission efficiency based on desirable coupling coefficient which makes it possible to certainly transmit/receive a signal in performing communication while enabling electric power transmission (Abstract).
Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops (element 3602 and element 3402 is part of element 2914 are galvanically isolated, Paragraph [0139]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al., Sullivan et al. and Oka ‘714 to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short circuit.
Regarding Claim 46, Oka ‘714 shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.8 (Abstract, Paragraph [0007]) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/10th the average diameter.
Regarding Claim 47, Oka ‘714 shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.9 (Abstract, Paragraph [0007]) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/15th the average diameter.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-11, 17, 34, and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka [JP 2012-222961] in view of Takei et al. [JP 2016-039677] and Sullivan [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0005531].
Regarding Claim 1, Oka shows a resonant coil (Fig. 9 with teachings from Figs. 1-8), comprising:
a plurality of conductors (321, 331, 310) forming a plurality of inductively coupled current loops (Abstract, Paragraph [0040]), the plurality of conductors comprising;
a first conductor (321) having a first end (right end) and a second end (left end), the first end and the second end being separated by a first gap (there should be a first gap between right end and left end of element 321); and
a second conductor (331 or 310) having a third end (right end) and a fourth end (left end), the third end and the fourth end being separated by a second gap (there should be a second gap between right end and left end of element 331 OR there is a second gap between right end and left end of element 310); and
at least one standalone capacitor comprising at least one first capacitor (322) connected to the first end (right end) and the second end (left end) of the first conductor (321),
wherein the at least one standalone capacitor further comprises at least one second standalone capacitor (332) connected to the third end (right end) and the fourth end (left end) of the second conductor (331),
wherein the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor (Paragraph [0024] discloses element 121, which is equivalent to element 321, and element 131, which is equivalent to element 331, are insulated and laminated which can have a dielectric layer separating elements 321, 331).
Oka does not explicitly show in the drawings the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor.
In addition, Takei et al. clearly shows a first conductor (middle element 40 of element 11(1)) having a first end (left end) and a second end (right end), the first end and the second end being separated by a first gap (element 42 corresponding to middle element 40 of element 11(1)); and a second conductor (upper element 40 of element 11(1) or element 40 of element 21(1)) having a third end (left end) and a fourth end (right end), the third end and the fourth end being separated by a second gap (element 42 corresponding to upper element 40 of element 11(1) or element 42 corresponding to element 40 of element 21(1)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first end and the second end being separated by a first gap and the third end and the fourth end being separated by a second gap as taught by Takei et al. for the device as disclosed by Oka to prevent unwanted connection and short circuit and to facilitate connection to a capacitor to achieve desirable operating characteristics where feeds the wireless electric power in an efficient manner (Abstract, Advantage).
Oka in view of Takei et al. does not show in the drawings the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor.
Sullivan shows multilayer conductors (Figs. 32-34) clearly showing the resonant coil (Paragraph [0133]) further comprises a dielectric layer (2906(1) or 2908(2)) separating the first conductor (2902(1) or 2904(2)) and the second conductor (2904(1) or (2902(3), see Figs. 32-34, element 2906(1) separating element 2902(1) and element 2904(1) or element 2908(2) separating element 2904(2) and element 2902(3)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the resonant coil further comprises a dielectric layer separating the first conductor and the second conductor as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and short circuiting; and higher performance, low dielectric loss and low cost (Paragraph [0130]).
Regarding Claim 2, Oka shows the first gap is approximately aligned with the second gap (see Fig. 9, there should be a first gap between right end and left end of element 321 that is approximately aligned with there should be a second gap between right end and left end of element 331).
Takei et al. shows the first gap is approximately aligned with the second gap (see Fig. 2, Paragraph [0016], element 42 corresponding to middle element 40 of element 11(1) approximately aligned with element 42 corresponding to upper element 40 of element 11(1)).
Regarding Claim 3, Oka shows the first conductor (element 321 is equivalent to element 121) and the second conductor (element 331 or 310 is equivalent to element 131 or 110, respectively) are in respective layers of a printed circuit board (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, Oka shows the at least one standalone capacitor (322) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 322 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 322 is part of resonator 320).
Takei et al. shows the at least one standalone capacitor (32) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 32 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 32 is part of resonator 5).
In addition, Sullivan shows (Fig. 34) the at least one standalone capacitor (3404 or 3406) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 3404 or 3406 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 3404 or 3406 is part of a resonant inductive-capacitive device, Paragraphs [0135], [0146]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. to form a resonant device of a desired frequency for desired application such as magnetic hyperthermia or wireless power transfer (Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding Claim 5, Oka shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (see Fig. 9, a capacitance between element 321 and element 322 or 310 substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance of element 322, as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Oka reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Takei et al. shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Takei et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
In addition, Sullivan shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (Paragraphs [0135], [0146], as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Sullivan reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Regarding Claim 7, Oka shows the first and second conductors are galvanically isolated from one another (element 321 and element 331 are insulated therefore are galvanically isolated from one another, Paragraphs [0024], [0039]).
Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors are galvanically isolated from one another (middle element 40 of element 11(1) and upper element 40 of element 11(1) or element 40 of element 21(1) are insulated therefore are galvanically isolated from one another, Paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
In addition, Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting the first (3602) and second conductors (element 3402 is part of element 2914) are galvanically isolated from one another (Paragraph [0139]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second conductors are galvanically isolated from one another as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short circuit.
Regarding Claim 10, Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors each have a C-shape (Paragraph [0017], see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 11, Oka shows the first and second conductors are planar (Paragraphs [0015], [0024], [0039], see Fig. 9)
Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors are planar (Paragraph [0015], see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Oka shows the first and second conductors are approximately concentric (see Fig. 9, elements 321, 332 are approximately concentric).
Takei et al. shows the first and second conductors are approximately concentric (see Figs. 2-3, elements 40 are approximately concentric).
Regarding Claim 34, Oka in view of Takei et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable operating characteristics and increases storing energy capacity. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors (3404(2), 3406(2)) of approximately equal capacitance (Paragraph [0141]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance as taught by Sullivan for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics to enhance storing energy capability and better high-frequency performance which facilitate effective capacitance (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding Claim 45, Oka shows a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated (element 321 and element 331 are insulated therefore are galvanically isolated from one another, Paragraphs [0024], [0039]) current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 (Abstract, Claim 1) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops.
Regarding Claim 46, Oka shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.8 (Abstract, Claim 1) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/10th the average diameter.
Regarding Claim 47, Oka shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.9 (Abstract, Claim 1) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/15th the average diameter.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabanillas [U.S. Patent No. 7,154,349].
Regarding Claim 4, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Cabanillas shows (Fig. 34) the at least one standalone capacitor (214 or 224) provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil (element 214 or 224 provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil since element 214 or 224 is part of resonator 200, Col. 4, Lines 1-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor provides a resonant capacitance for the resonant coil as taught by Cabanillas for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan to form a resonant device of a desired frequency for desired application to achieve good performance (Col. 2, Lines 8-37).
Regarding Claim 5, Cabanillas shows a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance (Col. 5, Lines 35-50, as of limitation "a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance", it is seen that the Cabanillas reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a capacitance between the first conductor and the second conductor substantially does not contribute to the resonant capacitance).
Regarding Claim 34, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Cabanillas shows (Fig. 3A, 3E, or 5) teaching and suggesting the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors (324, 334 or 524, 534) of approximately equal capacitance (Col. 6, Lines 31-40, Col. 9, Lines 36-54).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one standalone capacitor comprises a plurality of standalone capacitors of approximately equal capacitance as taught by Cabanillas for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan to achieve desirable operating characteristics to enhance storing energy capability and highest resonant frequency performance which facilitate effective capacitance (Col. 8, Lines 62-67 to Col. 9, Lines 1-15).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wichern [U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0053955].
Regarding Claim 17, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Wichern shows (Figs. 1-2) the first and second conductors are approximately concentric (see Figs. 1-2, elements 12, 22 are approximately concentric, Paragraph [0032]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second conductors are approximately concentric as taught by Wichern for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan to achieve an extremely small construction, realizing the object of miniaturizing electric components reducing manufacturing size and cost (Paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabanillas [U.S. Patent No. 7,154,349].
Regarding Claim 45, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Moreover, Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops (element 3602 and element 3402 is part of element 2914 are galvanically isolated, Paragraph [0139]) to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short circuit.
In addition, Cabanillas shows a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated (see Fig. 3A) current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 (k12=k13=k23=1, Col. 7, Lines 31-39) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops as taught by Cabanillas for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan to achieve high power transmission efficiency based on desirable coupling coefficient and to form a resonant device of a desired frequency for desired application to achieve good performance (Col. 2, Lines 8-37).
Regarding Claim 46, Cabanillas shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.8 (k12=k13=k23=1, Col. 7, Lines 31-39) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/10th the average diameter.
Regarding Claim 47, Cabanillas shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.9 (k12=k13=k23=1, Col. 7, Lines 31-39) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/15th the average diameter.
Claim(s) 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oka [JP 2012-049714] (hereinafter as “Oka ‘714”).
Regarding Claim 45, Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Sullivan shows (Fig. 36) teaching and suggesting adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops (element 3602 and element 3402 is part of element 2914 are galvanically isolated, Paragraph [0139]) to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short circuit.
In addition, Oka ‘714 shows a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated (see Figs. 1-2 and 9) current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 (Abstract, Paragraph [0007]) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a magnetic coupling coefficient between adjacent galvanically isolated current loops of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops exceeds k = 0.1 and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/3rd an average diameter of the plurality of inductively coupled current loops as taught by Oka ‘714 for the device as disclosed by Oka in view of Takei et al. and Sullivan to achieve high power transmission efficiency based on desirable coupling coefficient which makes it possible to certainly transmit/receive a signal in performing communication while enabling electric power transmission (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 46, Oka ‘714 shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.8 (Abstract, Paragraph [0007]) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/10th the average diameter.
Regarding Claim 47, Oka ‘714 shows the magnetic coupling coefficient exceeds k = 0.9 (Abstract, Paragraph [0007]) and/or a distance between the adjacent galvanically isolated current loops is less than 1/15th the average diameter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-11, 17, 34, and 45-47 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 TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (571)272-3985. 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837