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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/20/25 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome 112, 102, and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/20/25. The new grounds of rejection presented below are necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1, “annunciator not being positioned on the device support surface” and “the controller operable to maintain the annunciator in the inactive condition when the device is approaching before the device is present on the support surface.”
Claim 11, “annunciator is not positioned on the device support surface such that the annunciator remains visible when device support surface is obscured when the device occupies the device support surface.”
Claim 12, “annunciator remains in the inactive condition at all times when a device is not on the device support surface.”
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “if a device is determined to be present and not approaching before being present but charging is not occurring, generating an alert signal” which appears to be self-contradictory assuming that the device is not permanently present on the charger and the device gets charged by first being brought to the charger. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the phrase as the following:
“generating an alert signal only when the device is determined to be present on the surface of the charger and charging is not occurring.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20210044158 A1) in view of Insignia (Quick Setup Guide - 10 Watt Wireless Chargers, Best Buy Purchasing, LLC, 2020).
Regarding independent claim 1, Deng teaches a charger (Fig. 1: 10) for an electronic device (Fig. 2 & ¶0050: 20) having a wireless transducer (¶0052: receive coil 21), the charger comprising;
a frame (Fig. 3A: 15) having a device support surface (¶0058: 151) configured to support the device;
a charging element (¶0052: transmit coil 11) connected to the frame (Fig. 3A: 11 connected to 15) and configured to transmit charging energy to the transducer of a device on the support surface (¶0057);
a sensor (Fig. 1 & ¶0128: 17) connected to the frame and operable to determine whether a device is present on the support surface (¶0128: a sensor 17, which is configured to sense whether the equipment to be charged 20 approaches the wireless charging device; ¶0129: sensor can be a “pressure sensor configured to detect whether the equipment to be charged is placed on the bearing surface.” The examiner interprets “approach of the device”, to include placement of the device on the bearing surface.);
an annunciator (Fig. 1 & ¶0052: indicator 14) having an active condition and an inactive condition (¶0154: “the light-emitting element is controlled to emit light” and when the device to be charged is “placed well”, the light source is turned off);
the condition of the annunciator being perceptible to a user when the device is positioned on the device support surface (¶0154);
a controller (Fig. 1 & ¶0050: 13) connected to the frame (15), to the sensor (17), to the charging element (11), and to the annunciator (14) (Fig. 3A: 13 connected to 15, 17, 11 and 14);
the controller being operable to determine
whether a fault condition exists, in which the sensor determines that a device is present on the support surface but the charging element is not transmitting charging energy, or
whether charging is occurring; and
the controller operable, in response to a determination that a fault condition exists, to activate the annunciator to the active condition, and
the controller operable, in response to a determination that a fault condition does not exist, to maintain the annunciator in the inactive condition (Fig. 12B: After conditions are met for “electronic equipment is not charging” and “equipment to be charged approaches”, the controller executes “controlling the rotator to rotate and the light-emitting element to emit light” ; ¶0154: When the device to be charged is “placed well”, the light source is turned off. The examiner interprets “placed well” as the charger is charging the device.), and
the controller operable to maintain the annunciator in the inactive condition when the device is approaching before the device is present on the support surface (Fig. 12B: Before the condition is met for “equipment to be charged approaches”, the controller does not execute “controlling the rotator to rotate and the light-emitting element to emit light.” The examiner interprets that the device can be approaching the support surface before detection by the charger and therefore the lights remains inactive until device detection).
Deng does not teach the annunciator being not positioned on the device support surface.
Insignia teaches the annunciator being not positioned on the device support surface (Features and Product Overview showing front and back view of the charger, see below: LED indicator is located on the side which is a surface that does not support the device.).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both Deng and Insignia teach the wireless device charger. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the LED light on the side of the charger in Insignia into the charger of Deng for the purpose of providing a position for the LED that is more preferential and visible to the user.
Additionally, regarding maintaining the annunciator in the inactive condition when the device is approaching before the device is present on the support surface Insignia uses a specific LED indicator status for charging (solid blue), and charging not occurring (solid red or blinking red). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate no LED indication when the device is not present on the support surface. This would be useful for the case of where multicolor LEDs or more complex controllers are not available to incorporate into manufacture, or to provide a more simplified notification to the user.
Additionally, the solid blue status is equivalent to an active condition, since it indicates that charging is active, while the solid/blinking red status is equivalent to an inactive condition since it indicates that charging is inactive.
Regarding claims 2-4, Deng teaches the sensor (17) can be a weight-responsive device, a scale, and/or a switch (¶0129, the sensor 17 can be a pressure sensor, which is configured to detect whether the equipment to be charged is placed on the bearing surface 151 by detecting a pressure change on the bearing surface 151 … the sensor 17 can also include a contact switch or the like).
Regarding claim 8, Deng teaches the controller operable to disable actuation of the annunciator after detecting charging without a fault condition (¶0154: When the device to be charged is “placed well”, the light source is turned off. The examiner interprets “placed well” as the charger is charging the device and there is no fault condition.).
Regarding independent claim 9, Deng teaches a method of operating a wireless device charger (¶0152: wireless charging method) comprising the steps:
determining whether a device is present on the charger (Fig. 12B & ¶0153: “Whether an equipment to be charged approaches”. The examiner interprets “approach of the device”, to include placement of the device on the bearing surface, as recited in Deng ¶0129, “pressure sensor configured to detect whether the equipment to be charged is placed on the bearing surface”.);
determining whether charging is occurring (Fig. 12B & ¶0153: “Whether … an electronic equipment is charging”).
Deng does not explicitly teach generating an alert signal only when the device is determined to be present on the surface of the charger and charging is not occurring (See interpretation of the claim language in Claim Objections above).
Insignia teaches generating an alert signal only when the device is determined to be present on the surface of the charger and charging is not occurring (Using Your Charging Pad #3: Device is placed on charger (See below). LED is red when device is not charging.).
PNG
media_image2.png
253
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Deng and Insignia both teach wirelessly charging a device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the LED indicator status of Insignia into Deng to specifically let the user know that charging is not occurring on the device the user just placed on the charger.
Regarding claim 10, Deng teaches the method of claim 9, wherein determining whether a device is present is detecting a force from the device (¶0129: pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 11, Deng in view of Insignia teaches the charger of claim 1 wherein Insignia further teaches the annunciator is not positioned on the device support surface such that the annunciator remains visible when the device support surface is obscured when the device occupies the device support surface (Features and Product Overview in Insignia Quick Setup Guide).
Regarding claim 12, Deng in view of Insignia teaches the charger of claim 1 wherein the annunciator remains in the inactive condition at all times when a device is not on the device support surface (Fig. 12B: After conditions are met for “electronic equipment is not charging” and “equipment to be charged approaches”, the controller executes “controlling the rotator to rotate and the light-emitting element to emit light.” The examiner interprets “approach of the device”, to include placement of the device on the bearing surface, as recited in Deng ¶0129, “pressure sensor configured to detect whether the equipment to be charged is placed on the bearing surface.” The limitation of the annunciator remaining inactive as long as a device is not on the device support surface falls within the scope of Deng).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Insignia and the US Patent Publication of Barmoav et al. (US PGPub 20170104355 A1, published Apr. 13, 2017), hereinafter referred to as Barmoav.
Regarding claim 5, Deng in view of Insignia teaches the charger of claim 1, including a sensor (17) and a charging element (11).
Deng and Insignia do not teach wherein:
the sensor is at least a portion of the charging element.
Barmoav teaches a charger (Fig. 1B) for an electronic device including a charging element (¶0016: transmit coil 104), wherein a sensor is at least a portion of the charging element (¶0054: in at least one embodiment, coil structure provides both charging and presence detection).
Both Deng and Barmoav teach wireless charging. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to incorporate the teachings of Barmoav for a more compact, efficient design of the charger and forgoing the inclusion of a separate presence detector and additional manufacture costs associated with it.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Insignia and the US Patent Publication of Kossi et al. (US PGPub 20140002013 A1, published Jun. 28, 2012), hereinafter referred to as Kossi.
Regarding claim 6, Deng teaches the charger of operating a wireless device charger of claim 1, including an annunciator (14).
Deng and Insignia do not teach wherein:
the annunciator is an audible signaler.
Kossi teaches a charger for a wireless device including an audible signal annunciator (¶0034: user interface 22 causes provision of an audible, visual, mechanical or other output to the user).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to incorporate the teachings of Kossi to include an audible indicator alerting the user of a more efficient placement of the electronic device on the wireless charger for the case that the user would not notice visual or tactile alerts.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Insignia and the US Patent Publication of Keeley et al. (US PGPub 20190305567 A1, published Oct. 3, 2019), hereinafter referred to as Keeley.
Regarding claim 7, Deng teaches the charger of operating a wireless device charger of claim 1, including a controller (13) and an annunciator (14).
Deng and Insignia do not teach wherein:
the controller is operable to disable actuation of the annunciator upon completing of charging.
Keeley teaches:
a controller operable to disable actuation of the annunciator upon completion of charging (Fig. 11 & ¶0077: if the battery is fully charged, the charge control program sends an alert).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Deng to incorporate the teachings of Keeley to include a controller responsive to the condition that a device has been fully charged so as to alert the user that their device is fully charged and prevent waste of time and power for charging. The signal generating the alert from Keeley can be just as easily be configured to disable an alert, if the alert was active before charging was completed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ryu-Sung Peter Weinmann whose telephone number is (703)756-5964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Julian Huffman, can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/Ryu-Sung P. Weinmann/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 December 9, 2025
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859