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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Pro Se
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 2-3 the Applicant argues with respect to prior art Golko, stating the prior art fails to appropriately teach or suggest “said primary conductors having two physical ends… powered only at one said physical end, by an electrical source…”. The Applicant’s arguments are no considered to be persuasive because they rely on a limitation that is itself unclear. As set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the phrase “primary conductors having two physical ends… configured to be powered only at one said physical end” is indefinite. As will be addressed in further detail below, it is unclear what is meant by “one said physical end”. It is further unclear whether each conductor has exactly two ends and only one is powered, or only one end among multiple conductors is powered. Furthermore, “powered only at one end” is functional/operational, not structural. Accordingly, the Applicant’s attempt to distinguish the prior art based on this limitation is not persuasive because the scope of the limitation itself is not reasonable ascertainable. That is, the claimed limitation merely recites an intended manner of use or operation of the conductors, rather than a structural difference. Furthermore, prior art Golko teaches conductors which inherently have two physical ends. The connection to a source is made via terminals/leads which necessarily correspond to ends of the conductor. Supplying current to a conductor via a terminal inherently constitutes providing electrical power at an end of the conductor. Even further, the claim does not clearly exclude configurations in which both ends are connected within a circuit, as the phrase “only at one end” is unclear and lacks objective boundaries. In practical electrical systems, a conductor forming part of a circuit is energized via a potential difference, and current flow inherently involves the entire conductive path. Characterizing such conductors as being “powered at one end” does not meaningfully distinguish over conventional conductive arrangements such as those disclosed in Golko. The Applicant has not identified any structural feature in the claimed conductors that distinguishes over the conductors of Golko, but instead relies on a functional characterization of how the conductors are powered. Absent a clear structural distinction, the examined is not apprised of how the claimed conductors differ from those of Golko.
At page 7 the Applicant argues with respect to claim 19 stating support can be found in a plurality of figures. The Applicant is reminded that, due to the restriction requirement, amendments and support may only be provided in relation to the elected figures/embodiment. Claim limitations directed towards non-elected embodiments are considered non-compliant and are not considered.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The relied-upon limitation is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and even if interpreted, does not impart a structural distinction over the conductors disclosed in Golko. An updated action is presented below to address the most recent claim amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electrical source must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 6-15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-4, 6-15, and 17 have been previously withdrawn from consideration due to the previous restriction requirement. As such, said claims should be notated as being WITHDRAWN and not as ORIGINAL as the Applicant continues to present. Future filings of said claims as ORIGINAL and not WITHDRAWN or CANCELED will be met with a Notice of Non-Compliance. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 19 recites the phrase, “…said coupling side or said secondary magnetic elements can roll over said primary magnetic elements”. The Specification does not appear to reasonably convey or provide clear disclosure of: mechanical arrangements, support structures, or implementation details to achieve the claimed movement. One of ordinary skill would not be enabled to implement the claimed movement without undue experimentation, due to lack of guidance.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1: The phrase, “to be able to transfer” is functional language that does not impose a clear structural limitation. It is unclear what structural features of the “primary magnetic elements” and “secondary magnetic elements” enable this capability. Furthermore, the term “circular magnetic fluxes” itself is unclear as it is not a standard term of art, and is ambiguous as to whether this refers to: flux lines, rotating magnetic fields, or some other phenomenon. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed “magnetic elements” are unclear.
The phrase, “spaced apart from each other” fails to specify the degree of spacing, relative positioning, or any functional relationship tied to the spacing. This is a relative term without objective boundaries therefore rendering the scope uncertain.
The phrase, “disposed substantially in parallel or substantially perpendicularly with a coupling side,” also has multiple issues. The term “substantially” introduces ambiguity without a defined tolerance. The phrase, “coupling side” is unclear as it has not been previously defined and does clarify what structure constitutes as a “side”. It is unclear whether the conductors are parallel or perpendicular to each other or to the coupling side, or how this orientation is measured. Therefore, the spatial relationship is considered indefinite and not reasonably ascertainable.
The claim further recites, “direction of electric current is opposite in one…to another…” which is unclear. It is unclear which conductors are being compared as no reference point or configuration is provided. The phrase does not structurally limit the apparatus, but instead describes an operational state. The Applicant is reminded that claims directed towards an apparatus are to be defined in terms of structure and not intended use or function.
The phrase, “configured to be powered only at one said physical end,” also is unclear. It is unclear whether each conductor has two ends but only one is powered, or only one conductor end among many is powered. The phrase, “only at one” introduces ambiguity to the scope as it is unclear whether this excludes all other power configurations, or under what conditions this takes place.
The phrase, “creates said one or more circular magnetic fluxes to generate electric current” is purely functional/ result-oriented language as it does not recite how the structures achieve this, or what structural features are required. It appears the claim attempts to define the invention by the result achieved, rather than structure.
The claim, in general, lacks clear structural interrelationship. While the claim recites multiple components: magnetic elements, conductors, it fails to clearly define how they are physically arranged relative to each other, how they are connected, or how the system is structurally distinguished from known inductive systems. Instead, the claim reads as a collection of loosely related elements with functional descriptions rather than a definite apparatus.
In general, with respect to claim 1, while the claim is directed towards an apparatus, and should be further limited in terms of structure, said claim relies on operational behavior as opposed to a defined structure. Accordingly, because the claim includes multiple ambiguous terms, unclear relational limitations, and functional language that fails to provide definite structural boundaries, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). As such, the claim will be examined under its broadest reasonable interpretation as best understood from the Specification. Claims 5, 16, and 18-23 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore inherit said deficiencies.
Regarding Claim 16: The phrase, “providing a travelling electromagnetic field” is purely functional language that fails to further limit the structure of the system. It is unclear what structural features of the system cause the field to be “travelling,” or what constitutes a “travelling” field. It appears the claim attempts to define the invention by the result achieved, rather than by definite structure.
Regarding Claim 18: The phrase, “forming working pairs” is unclear as it does not specify what elements form the “pairs”. It is unclear as the claim fails to define how the pairs are formed, what structure constitutes as a “pair” or what makes the pair “working”.
Regarding Claim 19: The phrase, “enabling relative mutual movement” is functional and does not recite and structure that permits such movement. The phrase, “in a direction parallel with said coupling side” is unclear because a “coupling side” lacks clear definition as noted in claim 1. The alternative limitation is also unclear because it is not clear what structure enables “rolling” or whether the elements themselves roll, or they are mounted on rolling structures.
Regarding Claim 20: The phrase, “coupled with a vehicle or with an offshore vessel” is vague and unclear as it is not defined what constitutes “coupled” (i.e., physically attached, electrically connected, or merely associated). This limitation does not further define the structure of the wireless electromagnetic energy transfer system, but instead merely recites an intended environment or use.
Regarding Claims 22-23: Similar rationale holds true, as addressed above, with respect to the claim language presented. Said claim language is largely narrative and merely directed towards functional recitations without clearly defining the structure or further limiting and defining the apparatus in terms of structure. In general, claims 1, 5, 16 and 18-23 are largely riddled with narrative, functional language that fails to impose clear structural limitations on the claimed apparatus. As such, the scope of these claims is dependent on unbounded results or intended uses, rendering the metes and bounds of the claimed invention unclear. Said claims will be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation, as best understood, in light of the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golko et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0091388).
Regarding Claim 1:
Golko et al. discloses a wireless electromagnetic energy transfer system (Fig. 5B, device 500), comprising: one or more primary magnetic elements (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 540a, 540b, etc., and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0075) and one or more secondary magnetic elements (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, etc., and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0075) spaced apart from each other (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 540a, 540b, spaced apart from each other as shown, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, spaced apart from each other as shown, as well as magnets 540a, 540b spaced apart from magnets 544a, 544b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0009, 0041, 0075, etc. which disclose the corresponding distal ends of the elements may be in close proximity in the mated position, but will be separated “by windows—thin pieces of magnetically permeable material” thereby indicating that the respective magnets will be “spaced apart” from each other) to be able to transfer one or more circular magnetic fluxes (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, and their related discussion; see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0009, 0027, 0041-0042, 0075, etc. which discloses the circular magnetic flux(es)); two or more primary conductors (Fig. 5B, coils 528a, 528b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0074-0077, etc.) and two or more secondary conductors (Fig. 5B, coils 534a, 534b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0074-0077, etc.) disposed substantially in parallel or substantially perpendicularly with a coupling side of said primary or secondary magnetic elements, respectively (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, coils 528a, 528b, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, coils 534a, 534b, and their related discussion; see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0009, 0027, 0041-0045, 0074-0077, etc.), the system characterized in that: direction of electric current is opposite in one of said primary conductors to another of said primary conductors (Fig. 5B, coils 528a, 528b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0074-0077, etc. which disclose, as shown, the electric current flowing through coil 528a in a clockwise direction, while the electric current flowing through another coil 528b in an opposite, counter-clockwise direction), and direction of electric current is opposite in one of said secondary conductors to another of said secondary conductors (Fig. 5B, coils 534a, 534b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0074-0077, etc. which disclose, as shown, the electric current flowing through coil 534a in a clockwise direction, while the electric current flowing through another coil 534b in an opposite, counter-clockwise direction), wherein: said primary conductors having two physical ends are configured to be powered only at one said physical end by an electrical source (Fig. 5B, coils 528a, 528b powered via transformer 526 at an input end, and their related discussion; see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0009, 0027, 0041-0045, 0074-0077, etc. which disclose the respective primary conductors are to be power at an input end connected to the transformer as shown, while the respective secondary conductors are to provide electricity to downstream circuitry connected to an output end, such as charging circuit 536, battery 538, etc. See the 112b rejections above) and wherein electric current flowing through said primary conductors creates said one or more circular magnetic fluxes to generate electric current in the secondary conductors (Fig. 2B, first and second permanent magnets 244a, 244b, coil 228, first and second permanent magnets 244a, 244b, coil 234, and their related discussion; see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0009, 0027, 0041-0045, etc.).
Regarding Claim 5:
Golko teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Golko further discloses wherein at least one of said primary magnetic elements or said secondary magnetic elements comprise a magnetic material (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 540a, 540b, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0009, 0041, 0074-0077, etc.), wherein at least one said magnetic material is selected from the group consisting of ferrites, magnetic metals, magnetically permeable materials, magnetic elastomers, elastic magnetic materials, translucent magnetic materials, transparent magnetic materials, magnetic binders, magnetic polymers, magnetic rubbers, magnetic gels, magnetic metamaterials, magnetic crystalline materials, magnetic liquid crystalline materials, magnetic phase change materials, photomagnetic materials, magnetic powders, magnetic particles, magnetic nanoparticles, magnetic shapes, magnetic coatings, magnetic layers, magnetic printed circuit boards, or combinations thereof (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 540a, 540b, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0009, 0041, 0074-0077, etc.).
Regarding Claim 16:
Golko teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Golko further discloses providing a travelling electromagnetic field (see, at least, paragraphs 0027, 0042-0043, 0074-0077, etc. See the 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 18:
Golko teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Golko further discloses forming working pairs (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 540a, 540b, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0009, 0041, 0074-0077, etc. See the 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 19:
Golko teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Golko further discloses enabling relative mutual movement of said primary magnetic elements and said secondary magnetic elements in a direction parallel with said coupling side or said secondary magnetic elements can roll over said primary magnetic elements (Fig. 5B, first and second permanent magnets 540a, 540b, first and second permanent magnets 544a, 544b, coils 528a, 528b, coils 534a, 534b, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0009, 0041, 0074-0077, etc. Furthermore, said limitation fails to claim what structure is required or present to perform such functionality. That is, said claim limitation lacks the required structure necessary to perform such enablement. See the 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 20:
Golko teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Golko further discloses wherein said wireless electromagnetic energy transfer system is coupled with a vehicle or with an offshore vessel (see, at least, paragraph 0015. See the 112b rejections above).
Regarding Claim 21:
Golko teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Golko further discloses wherein at least one of said primary conductors or said secondary conductors comprise a conductive path, wherein at least one said conductive path is selected from the group consisting of elastic conductive paths, wires, tressed wires, stranded wires, fibers, sheets, plates, bands, tubes, air cores conductors, hollow profiles, shapes, shaped profiles, rods, strips, microstrips, striplines, lines, ribbons, gels, inks, paints, traces, printed circuit board traces, nanostructures, metamaterials, crystalline materials, powders, particles, coatings, layers, translucent layers, transparent layers, photoconductive materials, semiconductors, semiconductor layers, or combinations thereof (Fig. 5B, coils 528a, 528b, coils 534a, 534b, and their related discussion; see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0009, 0012-0014, 0027, 0041-0045, 0074-0077, etc. See the 112b rejections above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N INGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7705. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00 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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/JOSEPH N INGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2836