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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/17/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 16 and 21 has/have been amended; claim(s) 25 has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 36-37 has/have been added. Thus, claims 16-24 and 26-37 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 16-24 and 26-35 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 “close to” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” 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. Page 5 of the specification, lines 22-28 recites "the frequency of the oscillator field is close to the first or second resonance frequency, respectively, when a difference between the frequency of the oscillator field and the first or second resonance frequency, respectively, is less than 500 kHz (kilo-Hertz), in particular less than 100 kHz (kilo- Hertz), preferably less than 50 kHz (kilo-Hertz), more preferably less than 20 kHz (kilo-Hertz), even more preferably less than 10 kHz (kilo-Hertz, most preferably less than 5 kHz (kilo-Hertz)." Examiner suggests amending claim 16 to recite which of the ranges from the specification Applicant refers as "close to."
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-37 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest a driving oscillator circuit comprising a common oscillator coil configured to selectively generate an alternating magnetic oscillator field having a frequency either at the first resonance frequency, or at the second resonance frequency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The claim has been amended to include a larger range realized by the relative term “close to.” However, the range “close to” is not clearly defined in the specification. The specification does not explain the degree at which “close to” would allow the driving oscillator circuit resonate with the first or second LC resonator.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights