DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on April 24, 2026, claims 1-2, 5, 7-9 and 23-25 and 28-36 are pending. Claims, 1-2, 5, 7-9, 23-25 and 28 are amended, claims 29-36 are newly added, claims 3-4, 6, 18-22 and 26-27 are presently cancelled and claims 10-17 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Fujii fails to teach “a first receive coil disposed within the head behind the frontal surface and extending in a first plane” and “a second receive coil disposed within the head behind the first lateral surface and extending in a second plane different from the first plane” as included in amended claim 1.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Fujii in view of Chang due to the amendments to claim 1. The claim is newly rejected over Volta as cited in previous actions.
The applicant argues that Volta does not disclose coils positioned along a frontal surface of the head.
However, the claim does not recite that the coils are positioned along a frontal surface, merely “within the head behind the frontal surface”. Because the coils are arranged within the head of Volta, they are also behind the frontal surface since any components within the head may be considered, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “behind” the surface. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. V. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "anti-series" in claim 33 is used by the claim to mean "series," as illustrated in at least FIG. 8 of the applicant's drawings, while the accepted meaning is two directional elements (like diodes, FETs) connected such that they cannot both conduct at the same time. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. However, from FIG. 8, elements 704 and 706 are connected in series. Thus, the claim language is understood to be series as this is the configuration illustrated in the figures and there is no further definition of "anti-series" in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 28, 30-31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Volta et al. US20180293412A1.
Regarding claim 1, Volta discloses a non-planar handheld scanner (FIG. 3-4) comprising:
a device housing (100) including a head (103) and an elongated handle (102), the head (103) further including at least a frontal surface, a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface, wherein the first and second lateral surfaces oppose each other and are coupled with the frontal surface (as illustrated below in partially reproduced and annotated FIG. 1C)
PNG
media_image1.png
428
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first receive coil (143) disposed within the head (103) behind the frontal surface (behind the face of the scanner) and extending in a first plane (FIG. 4E- extends in a plane behind the face); and
a second receive coil (143) disposed within the head (103) behind the first lateral surface (because the coil is arranged within the head, it is behind the lateral surface) and extending in a second plane different from the first plane (FIG. 4E) wherein current is induced in the first and second receive coils responsive to a presence of a magnetic field when the first and second coils are in proximity of a transmitter (341) (¶56).
Regarding claim 9, Volta discloses the wireless device is a barcode scanner (100) including optics (¶44-45) and an optical sensor (117) disposed within the head and behind a window disposed within the frontal surface thereof (FIG. 4A illustrates an optical sensor 117 behind the frontal surface).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the wireless charging device that is the barcode scanner to the arrangement of the wireless charging device of Fujii in order to provide wireless charging to a device that requires increased flexibility as needed (Volta; ¶7).
Regarding claim 28, Volta discloses that handheld scanner is a radio-frequency identification reader (¶48).
Regarding claim 30. Volta does not explicitly disclose that the second plane and the third plane are parallel with one another.
Fujii discloses that planes 21 and 23 are parallel with plane 25 that is out of parallel. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to designate plane 21 and 23 as the second and third planes which are parallel with one another (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 31. Volta disclose that the second plane (corresponding to the second coil 143) is substantially parallel with the first lateral surface (as illustrated in FIG. 4E the coil is substantially parallel to the opposing surface) .
Regarding claim 34. Volta discloses that the first receive coil includes one or more receive coils (FIG 8B; ¶95).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 23, 32-33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volta et al. US20180293412A1 in view of Fujii WO2014102883A1
Regarding claim 2, Volta does not explicitly teach that the second plane is perpendicular to the first plane such that upon placing the frontal surface in proximity with the transmitter, little or no current is induced in the second receive coil relative to when the first lateral surface is placed in proximity with the transmitter.
Fujii discloses the second plane (23) is perpendicular to the first plane (24) such that upon placing the frontal surface in proximity with the transmitter, little or no current is induced in the second receive coil relative to when the first lateral surface is placed in proximity with the transmitter (page 3, 2nd full paragraph -“The power transmission coil 71 of the charger 70 generates an electromotive force in the power reception coil 34 by electromagnetic induction” and “Here, the rectifier bridge circuits 41 to 43 prevent the electromotive force generated in the power receiving coil 34 from flowing back to the power receiving coils 31 to 33”. Thus, the current is only induced in the receiver coil proximate to the transmitter).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Volta does not explicitly disclose a third receive coil disposed within the head behind the second lateral surface and extending in a third plane different from the first and second planes wherein current is induced in the third receive coil responsive to a presence of a magnetic field when in proximity of the transmitter.
Fujii discloses a third receive coil (35) disposed within the head behind the second lateral surface and extending in a third plane (along surface 20b) different from the first (21/22) and second planes (23/24) wherein current is induced in the third receive coil responsive to a presence of a magnetic field when in proximity of the transmitter (page 3, second full paragraph - “At this time, the power reception coil 35 is disposed in the vicinity of the power transmission coil 81. The upper surface 80a of the charger 80 supports the portable terminal 11 in a flat state (flat posture). The power transmission coil 81 of the charger 80 generates electromotive force in the power reception coils 31 to 35 by electromagnetic induction”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Volta does not explicitly teach the second and third receive coils are electrically coupled in series such that the currents induced in the second and third receive coils add constructively
Fujii discloses the second (33/34) and third receive coils (35) are electrically coupled in series (FIG. 2 – the coils are shown to be coupled in series) such that the currents induced in the second and third receive coils add constructively (because the wireless power coils are arranged in series, it is known that currents will be summed).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Volta discloses that the first (31) and second (23) receive coils are configured to receive the wireless power signal from a wireless charging device (300) including the transmitter (341),
Volta does not explicitly teach the wireless charging device having a flat surface on which any of the frontal surface, the first lateral surface, or second lateral surface of the wireless device are placed, the wireless charging device including a transmit inductor (transmitting coil 71) having a dimension greater or equal than a dimension of any of the first receive coil, the second receive coil, or the third receive coil.
Fujii disclose that the wireless charging device having a flat surface (the surface 70a is shown as a flat surface) on which any of the frontal surface, the first lateral surface, or second lateral surface of the wireless device are placed (FIG. 3-4 the device is rotated so that a different surface is placed on the charger), the wireless charging device including a transmit inductor (transmitting coil 71) having a dimension greater or equal than a dimension of any of the first receive coil, the second receive coil, or the third receive coil (FIGS. 3-4 illustrate the transmitting coil being larger than the reception coil).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, Volta does not explicitly disclose that the first and second receive coils are electrically coupled with each other to generate a rectified current through a rectifier responsive to summing current signals through each of the first and second receive coils .
Fujii discloses that the first (power receiving coil 31/32) and second receive coils (power receiving coil 33/34) are electrically coupled with each other to generate a rectified current through a rectifier (50) responsive to summing current signals through each of the first and second receive coils (FIG. 2 – because the wireless power coils are arranged in series, it is known that currents will be summed).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 32. Volta does not explicitly teach that each of the first, second, and third receive coils are disposed at different planar angles relative to each other.
Fujii discloses that coils 32, 33 and 35 or coils 31, 34 and 35 are at different planar angles from each other.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 33. Volta does not explicitly disclose that the second receive coil and the third receive coil include terminals that are connected in anti-series.
Fujii discloses that the second receive coil (33/34) and the third receive coil (35) include terminals that are connected in anti-series. (FIG. 7 – the coils are shown to be coupled in series)
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 36. Although Volta teaches the coils being arranged in the head, Volta does not explicitly disclose the first, second, and third receive coils are disposed relative to each other in a three-dimensional orientation to facilitate wireless charging on a flat wireless charging surface in multiple different orientations of the handheld scanner.
Volta discloses the first, second, and third receive coils are disposed (page 2 - “When the mobile terminal 10 is contactlessly charged, an electromotive force is generated by electromagnetic induction in at least one of the power receiving coils 31 to 34, and a battery (described later) of the mobile terminal 10 is charged using the electromotive force. Since the four power receiving coils 31 to 34 are arranged on the four sides 21 to 24 of the casing 20 of the mobile terminal 10 respectively, restrictions related to the non-contact charging in the mobile terminal 10 are alleviated”).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volta et al. US20180293412A1 in view of Fujii WO2014102883A1 and further in view of Ahn et al. US20190131823A1.
Regarding claim 24, Volta does not explicitly teach a first sub-receiver including the second and third receive coils electrically coupled with each other to charge a first capacitor to generate a first voltage across the first capacitor; and a second sub-receiver including a first receive coil to charge a second capacitor to generate a second voltage across the second capacitor.
Fujii discloses a first sub-receiver including the second (33/34) and third receive coils (35) electrically coupled with each other (FIG. 7 illustrates coils 33/34/35 being electrically coupled to teach other).
Fujii discloses a second sub-receiver including a first receive coil (31/32).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arrangement of coils as taught by Fujii to the scanner of Volta in order to allow for flexibility in charging and eliminate the necessity to strictly align the portable terminal on the charger (Fujii; page 2, first full paragraph).
Fujii does not explicitly disclose a first sub-receiver to charge a first capacitor to generate a first voltage across the first capacitor and a second sub-receiver to charge a second capacitor to generate a second voltage across the second capacitor.
Ahn discloses a first sub-receiver (coil 211 and 221) to charge a first capacitor (232) to generate a first voltage across the first capacitor (¶51).
Although not the second sub-receiver is not explicitly taught by Ahn, it would be obvious to provide the same arrangement of the first sub-receiver of Ahn to the second sub-receiver of Fujii to charge a second capacitor to generate a second voltage across the second capacitor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the circuit arrangement of Ahn to the coil arrangement of Fujii in order to control to the output voltage and provide sufficient voltage to a load.
Regarding claim 25, Volta discloses a load voltage provided to a load of the wireless device is a sum of at least the first voltage and the second voltage (because the first and second sub-receivers are connected in series, it is well-known in by one skilled in the art that the total voltage is the sum of the voltages).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volta et al. US20180293412A1 in view of Tseng et al. US20150137742A1
Regarding claim 29. Volta does not explicitly teach that the first and second receive coils configured to operate at a resonant frequency substantially near a predefined transmit frequency centered at 6.78 megahertz.
Tseng discloses that the receive coils configured to operate at a resonant frequency substantially near a predefined transmit frequency centered at 6.78 megahertz (¶51 – resonant frequency of the receiving coil is about 6.78).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the resonant frequency at 6.78 in order to provide the best charging efficiency (Tseng; ¶51).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volta et al. US20180293412A1 in view of Saunamaki US20110057606A1
Regarding claim 35. Volta does not explicitly disclose that each of the first receive coil and the second receive coil utilize a printed circuit board (PCB) support.
Saunamaki discloses a receiving coil being a printed wiring coil on a printed wiring board (¶18)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the coil on a printed circuit board since it was known in the art that a receiver coil is printed on a printed circuit board for ease of providing the appropriate size of coil (¶45).
Related Prior Art
Rosenfeld US20150280482A1 discloses that a receiving coil may be formed on a printed circuit board (¶26).
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 PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights