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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, “about 10%” and “about 5%”.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, “substantially a planar coil”, “a substantially planar surface”, “a second substantially planar major boundary surface”, and “substantially parallel”.
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, “substantially a helical coil”, “a substantially cylindrical outer surface”, “a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface”, and “substantially concentric”.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. [U.S. Patent No. 7,804,272] in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0058349].
Regarding Claim 1, Morita et al. shows a magnetic film assembly (Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) comprising:
a coil (14a or 4a) comprising a plurality of turns (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) defining a first major boundary surface (top surface) of the coil (14a or 4a, see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized (during operation, see Figs. 4-5), the coil generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air (g) proximate and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 4, element 14a or 4a generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air proximate and substantially parallel to the top surface), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 4-5, as of limitation " the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air); and
a magnetic layer (13a or 3a) disposed on the coil (14a or 4a) so as to comprise the region of interest (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized, the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer (see Figs. 4-5) in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 4-5, the magnetic flux density have a portion in the center region that is constant which is the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, as of limitation "the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
Moreover, as the “region of interest” defined in claim 1, however, is not limited by any constructive features, it is obvious to choose an appropriate region in Figs. 4-5 which will satisfy the conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. As for Morita et al., the more uniform in-plane magnetic field distribution in a region of interest is improved by the respective magnetic layers and a respective region of interest can be chosen which satisfies conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the magnetic film assembly according to practical needs and design requirements such that the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest to enhance the magnetic coupling, performance, and efficiency in power transfer.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to enhance the magnetic coupling rate and therefore to transmit a higher power, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Kim et al. shows a wireless power transmitting device (Figs. 3-11) teaching and suggesting a coil comprising a plurality of turns (Paragraph [0060]), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Fig. 11, the center region of 0 to 1 cm or 0 to 5 cm shows in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air) and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (Paragraph [0020], uniform magnetic field density will result in zero variance therefore a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
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 in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest as taught by Kim et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. to achieve uniform charging efficiency (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. shows the coil (14a or 4a) is substantially a planar coil (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil (14a or 4a) opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer substantially completely covers the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 13a substantially completely covers element 14a).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer covers only a portion of the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 3a covers only a portion of element 4a).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jitaru et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0314197].
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jitaru et al. shows a device (Figs. 5-16) teaching and suggesting the coil (see Figs. 5-16) is substantially a planar coil (Paragraph [0028], [0032], [0037], [0042], [0048], [0053]), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 5-16), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil opposite (see Figs. 5-16) and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 5-16).
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 coil is substantially a planar coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially planar surface, and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface of the coil opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface as taught by Jitaru et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. to have a compact design to reduce manufacture size while achieving desirable coupling characteristics, improving system’s efficiency and reduce losses (Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0069851].
Regarding Claim 3, Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface.
Chung et al. shows a device (Figs. 2 and 4) teaching and suggesting the coil (120, 130, or 140) is substantially a helical coil (Paragraphs [0039], [0041]), the first major boundary surface (outer surface) is a substantially cylindrical outer surface (see Figs. 2 and 4), and wherein the coil (120, 130, or 140) defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface (inner surface) of the coil opposite to (see Figs. 2 and 4), and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2 and 4).
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 coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface as taught by Chung et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. to obtain a simpler structure and operates with low frequencies to enhance the efficiency of the power transfer to reduce the cost for system building and easily implement a transmitting section (Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinciuc et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0348864].
Regarding Claim 3, Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface.
Pinciuc et al. shows a device (Fig. 12) teaching and suggesting the coil (42 or 48) is substantially a helical coil (Paragraph [0051]), the first major boundary surface (outer surface) is a substantially cylindrical outer surface (see Fig. 12), and wherein the coil (42 or 48) defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface (inner surface) of the coil opposite to (see Fig. 12), and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 12).
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 coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface as taught by Pinciuc et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Kim et al. to produce magnetic field that are parallel to surface normal of the core which help enhance coupling efficiency and avoid eddy currents (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. [U.S. Patent No. 7,804,272] in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0155288].
Regarding Claim 1, Morita et al. shows a magnetic film assembly (Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) comprising:
a coil (14a or 4a) comprising a plurality of turns (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) defining a first major boundary surface (top surface) of the coil (14a or 4a, see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized (during operation, see Figs. 4-5), the coil generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air (g) proximate and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 4, element 14a or 4a generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air proximate and substantially parallel to the top surface), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 4-5, as of limitation " the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air); and
a magnetic layer (13a or 3a) disposed on the coil (14a or 4a) so as to comprise the region of interest (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized, the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer (see Figs. 4-5) in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 4-5, the magnetic flux density have a portion in the center region that is constant which is the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, as of limitation "the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
Moreover, as the “region of interest” defined in claim 1, however, is not limited by any constructive features, it is obvious to choose an appropriate region in Figs. 4-5 which will satisfy the conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. As for Morita et al., the more uniform in-plane magnetic field distribution in a region of interest is improved by the respective magnetic layers and a respective region of interest can be chosen which satisfies conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the magnetic film assembly according to practical needs and design requirements such that the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest to enhance the magnetic coupling, performance, and efficiency in power transfer.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to enhance the magnetic coupling rate and therefore to transmit a higher power, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Lee et al. shows a device (Figs. 6-7) teaching and suggesting a coil comprising a plurality of turns (see Fig. 7), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0085]-[0088], a portion of the H value region shows in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air) and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0085]-[0088], uniform magnetic field density will result in zero variance therefore a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
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 in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest as taught by Lee et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. to facilitate performance and energy transmission efficiency.
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. shows the coil (14a or 4a) is substantially a planar coil (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil (14a or 4a) opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer substantially completely covers the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 13a substantially completely covers element 14a).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer covers only a portion of the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 3a covers only a portion of element 4a).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. [U.S. Patent No. 7,804,272] in view of Partovi [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0056664].
Regarding Claim 1, Morita et al. shows a magnetic film assembly (Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) comprising:
a coil (14a or 4a) comprising a plurality of turns (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) defining a first major boundary surface (top surface) of the coil (14a or 4a, see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized (during operation, see Figs. 4-5), the coil generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air (g) proximate and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 4, element 14a or 4a generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air proximate and substantially parallel to the top surface), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 4-5, as of limitation " the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air); and
a magnetic layer (13a or 3a) disposed on the coil (14a or 4a) so as to comprise the region of interest (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized, the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer (see Figs. 4-5) in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 4-5, the magnetic flux density have a portion in the center region that is constant which is the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, as of limitation "the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
Moreover, as the “region of interest” defined in claim 1, however, is not limited by any constructive features, it is obvious to choose an appropriate region in Figs. 4-5 which will satisfy the conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. As for Morita et al., the more uniform in-plane magnetic field distribution in a region of interest is improved by the respective magnetic layers and a respective region of interest can be chosen which satisfies conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the magnetic film assembly according to practical needs and design requirements such that the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest to enhance the magnetic coupling, performance, and efficiency in power transfer.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to enhance the magnetic coupling rate and therefore to transmit a higher power, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Partovi shows a wireless power transmitting device (Figs. 18, 24) teaching and suggesting a coil comprising a plurality of turns (Figs. 1-23), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 18, 24, a portion of the H value region shows in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air) and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 18, 24, uniform magnetic field density will result in zero variance therefore a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
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 in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest as taught by Partovi for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. to achieve very good uniformity for power transfer efficiency (Paragraphs [0181], [0211]).
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. shows the coil (14a or 4a) is substantially a planar coil (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil (14a or 4a) opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer substantially completely covers the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 13a substantially completely covers element 14a).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer covers only a portion of the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 3a covers only a portion of element 4a).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. [U.S. Patent No. 7,804,272] in view of Partovi [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0056664] and Matsumoto et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0236518].
Regarding Claim 1, Morita et al. shows a magnetic film assembly (Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) comprising:
a coil (14a or 4a) comprising a plurality of turns (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) defining a first major boundary surface (top surface) of the coil (14a or 4a, see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized (during operation, see Figs. 4-5), the coil generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air (g) proximate and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 4, element 14a or 4a generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air proximate and substantially parallel to the top surface), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 4-5, as of limitation " the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air); and
a magnetic layer (13a or 3a) disposed on the coil (14a or 4a) so as to comprise the region of interest (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized, the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer (see Figs. 4-5) in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 4-5, the magnetic flux density have a portion in the center region that is constant which is the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, as of limitation "the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
Moreover, as the “region of interest” defined in claim 1, however, is not limited by any constructive features, it is obvious to choose an appropriate region in Figs. 4-5 which will satisfy the conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. As for Morita et al., the more uniform in-plane magnetic field distribution in a region of interest is improved by the respective magnetic layers and a respective region of interest can be chosen which satisfies conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the magnetic film assembly according to practical needs and design requirements such that the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest to enhance the magnetic coupling, performance, and efficiency in power transfer.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to enhance the magnetic coupling rate and therefore to transmit a higher power, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Partovi shows a wireless power transmitting device (Figs. 18, 24) teaching and suggesting a coil comprising a plurality of turns (Figs. 1-23), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 18, 24, a portion of the H value region shows in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air) and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 18, 24, uniform magnetic field density will result in zero variance therefore a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
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 in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest as taught by Partovi for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. to achieve very good uniformity for power transfer efficiency (Paragraphs [0181], [0211]).
Furthermore, Matsumoto et al. shows a wireless power transmitting device (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a coil comprising a plurality of turns (Paragraph [0040]), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Fig. 3, Paragraph [0042], a portion of the H value region such as 0 to 1 mm or 0 to 5 mm shows in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air).
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 in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air as taught by Matsumoto et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Partovi to achieve a highly efficient power transmission (Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. shows the coil (14a or 4a) is substantially a planar coil (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil (14a or 4a) opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer substantially completely covers the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 13a substantially completely covers element 14a).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer covers only a portion of the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 3a covers only a portion of element 4a).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. [U.S. Patent No. 7,804,272] in view of Cook et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0102292].
Regarding Claim 1, Morita et al. shows a magnetic film assembly (Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) comprising:
a coil (14a or 4a) comprising a plurality of turns (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1) defining a first major boundary surface (top surface) of the coil (14a or 4a, see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized (during operation, see Figs. 4-5), the coil generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air (g) proximate and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 4, element 14a or 4a generates an in-plane magnetic field component in a region of interest in air proximate and substantially parallel to the top surface), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (see Figs. 4-5, as of limitation " the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air); and
a magnetic layer (13a or 3a) disposed on the coil (14a or 4a) so as to comprise the region of interest (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), such that when energized, the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer (see Figs. 4-5) in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (see Figs. 4-5, the magnetic flux density have a portion in the center region that is constant which is the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, as of limitation "the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest", it is seen that the Morita et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
Moreover, as the “region of interest” defined in claim 1, however, is not limited by any constructive features, it is obvious to choose an appropriate region in Figs. 4-5 which will satisfy the conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. As for Morita et al., the more uniform in-plane magnetic field distribution in a region of interest is improved by the respective magnetic layers and a respective region of interest can be chosen which satisfies conditions of “the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air” and “the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the magnetic film assembly according to practical needs and design requirements such that the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest to enhance the magnetic coupling, performance, and efficiency in power transfer.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to enhance the magnetic coupling rate and therefore to transmit a higher power, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, Cook et al. shows a device (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting a coil comprising a plurality of turns (Paragraph [0016]), the in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air (Table 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, a H value is given which shows in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air) and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest (Table 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, a B value is given as a constant so uniform magnetic field density will result in zero variance therefore a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest).
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 in-plane magnetic field component having a magnetic field strength H that varies between a maximum Hmax and about 10% of Hmax in the region of interest in air and the coil generates a magnetic field inducing an in-plane magnetic flux density B in the magnetic layer in the region of interest that varies less than about 5% in the region of interest as taught by Cook et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. to achieve very good uniformity for power transfer efficiency (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. shows the coil (14a or 4a) is substantially a planar coil (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil (14a or 4a) opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2-5 or Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer substantially completely covers the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 13a substantially completely covers element 14a).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita et al. shows in a plan view, the magnetic layer covers only a portion of the coil (see Figs. 2-5, element 3a covers only a portion of element 4a).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jitaru et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0314197].
Regarding Claim 2, Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Jitaru et al. shows a device (Figs. 5-16) teaching and suggesting the coil (see Figs. 5-16) is substantially a planar coil (Paragraph [0028], [0032], [0037], [0042], [0048], [0053]), the first major boundary surface (top surface) is a substantially planar surface (see Figs. 5-16), and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface (bottom surface) of the coil opposite (see Figs. 5-16) and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 5-16).
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 coil is substantially a planar coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially planar surface, and wherein the coil defines a second substantially planar major boundary surface of the coil opposite and substantially parallel to the first major boundary surface as taught by Jitaru et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. to have a compact design to reduce manufacture size while achieving desirable coupling characteristics, improving system’s efficiency and reduce losses (Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0069851].
Regarding Claim 3, Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface.
Chung et al. shows a device (Figs. 2 and 4) teaching and suggesting the coil (120, 130, or 140) is substantially a helical coil (Paragraphs [0039], [0041]), the first major boundary surface (outer surface) is a substantially cylindrical outer surface (see Figs. 2 and 4), and wherein the coil (120, 130, or 140) defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface (inner surface) of the coil opposite to (see Figs. 2 and 4), and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface (see Figs. 2 and 4).
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 coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface as taught by Chung et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. to obtain a simpler structure and operates with low frequencies to enhance the efficiency of the power transfer to reduce the cost for system building and easily implement a transmitting section (Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinciuc et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0348864].
Regarding Claim 3, Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface.
Pinciuc et al. shows a device (Fig. 12) teaching and suggesting the coil (42 or 48) is substantially a helical coil (Paragraph [0051]), the first major boundary surface (outer surface) is a substantially cylindrical outer surface (see Fig. 12), and wherein the coil (42 or 48) defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface (inner surface) of the coil opposite to (see Fig. 12), and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface (see Fig. 12).
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 coil is substantially a helical coil, the first major boundary surface is a substantially cylindrical outer surface, and wherein the coil defines a substantially cylindrical major inner boundary surface of the coil opposite to, and substantially concentric with, the first major boundary surface as taught by Pinciuc et al. for the assembly as disclosed by Morita et al. in view of Lee et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi OR Morita et al. in view of Partovi and Matsumoto et al. OR Morita et al. in view of Cook et al. to produce magnetic field that are parallel to surface normal of the core which help enhance coupling efficiency and avoid eddy currents (Paragraph [0053]).
Conclusion
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