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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a subcombination of a resonator coil and control system to enable control of current direction, classified in H01F27/2804.
II. Claims 13-23, drawn to a subcombination of a reactance shift detection circuit, classified in H02J7/80.
III. Claims 24-35, drawn to a subcombination of a circuit for load-adaptive auto-tuning of a power transmitter, classified in H03H11/30.
IV. Claims 36-40, drawn to a combination of a wireless power transfer system, classified in H02J50/12.
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-40 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/5/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claims 4-10,
The claims have been amended from the original claims filed 8/17/2022 but the amendments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121 since the changes are not shown and the status identifiers are incorrect.
Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant had made a preliminary amendment on 8/17/2022 with arguments related to said amendments, but the amended listing of claims is not present in the application file and only the original listing of claims filed 8/17/2022 is present.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maniktala, US Publication No. 2018/0005755.
Regarding Claim 1, Maniktala teaches a resonator coil for generating a magnetic field distribution for a transmitter of an inductive wireless power transfer (WPT) system (Maniktala Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0004], [0017] and [0020], see coils 212 and 214 that are part of a WPT transmitter), comprising:
conductive traces patterned to define a coil topology comprising a plurality of turns, having first and second feed ports (Maniktala Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0004] and [0017]-[0019], wherein each coil has a plurality of turns and has input and output feed ports);
each turn comprising a first part wherein said conductive traces are defined in a first plane, and a second part wherein said conductive traces are defined in a second plane (Maniktala Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph [0021], wherein the coil is bent at an angle, which causes each turn to have portions at an angle to each other), wherein the turns of the first and second parts are serially interconnected (Maniktala Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0017] and [0021], wherein the turns of the coil are continuous and therefore serially interconnected).
Regarding Claim 2, Maniktala further teaches wherein the first plane and the second plane are substantially orthogonal (Maniktala paragraph [0021], wherein angles of the center portion to the side portions range from approximately 90 degrees to approximately 175 degrees, the angles therefore including ranges wherein the angle of the planes of the side portions relative to each other may be orthogonal).
Regarding Claim 3, Maniktala further teaches wherein the first plane and the second plane are orthogonal (Maniktala paragraph [0021], wherein the angle of the planes of the side portions relative to each other may be orthogonal).
Regarding Claim 4, Maniktala further teaches wherein the coil topology is configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic field distribution for wireless charging within a 3D charging space (Maniktala paragraph [0019], wherein the coil generates a magnetic field that is three dimensional due to the shape of the coil).
Regarding Claim 5, Maniktala further teaches wherein the coil topology is configured to generate a three-dimensional magnetic field distribution for wireless charging within a hemi-spherical charging space (Maniktala Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019], wherein the coil generates a magnetic field that is three dimensional due to the shape of the coil and is in the shape of a hemisphere).
Regarding Claim 6, Maniktala further teaches wherein the first plane comprises an xy plane, and the second plane comprises a xz plane or a yz plane (Maniktala paragraph [0021], wherein the angle of the planes of the sides portions of the coil defines orthogonal planes, e.g. xy and xz) .
Regarding Claim 7, Maniktala further teaches wherein the first plane comprises an xy plane, and the second plane comprises a xz plane, and the charging space comprises a first half and a second half on opposite sides of the xz plane (Maniktala Fig. 3 and paragraph [0021], wherein the 90 degree angle of the coil defines orthogonal planes, e.g. xy and xz, with the magnetic fields on both sides of the xz plane).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al., hereinafter Lin, WO 2018/064518.
Regarding Claim 11, Lin teaches a 3D resonant wireless charging system comprising:
a resonator coil having a coil topology configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic field distribution for wireless charging within a 3D charging space (Lin Fig. 1A paragraph [0004], wherein a coil array topology is used to generate a 3D magnetic field within a 3D charging space);
a push-pull Class E power amplifier (PA) or a class EF2 PA (Lin paragraph [0023], wherein class E power amplifiers are utilized); and
a control system configured to enable control of current direction responsive to a load condition (Lin Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0045], wherein the control circuit controls the current supplied to the coils in response to the load, the current waveform being sinusoidal which changes and controls the current direction).
Regarding Claim 12, Lin further teaches wherein the control system is configured to enable control of at least one of a time interval and a phase of current flow on each part of the coil responsive to said load condition (Lin paragraphs [0040]-[0045], wherein the phase of the current is controlled by the control circuit).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maniktala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elkhouly et al., hereinafter Elkhouly, US Publication No. 2016/0164332.
Regarding Claim 8, Maniktala does not explicitly teach wherein trace widths and trace spacings of each turn are configured to optimize a uniformity of the magnetic field distribution within the charging space.
Elkhouly teaches wherein trace widths and trace spacings of each turn are configured to optimize a uniformity of the magnetic field distribution within the charging space (Elkhouly paragraph [0055], wherein the trace width and trace spacing are selected to provide a uniform charging field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maniktala and Elkhouly to apply the known technique of uniform charging fields through coil design as taught by Elkhouly to improve on the coil design as taught by Maniktala, yielding the predictable results of improved wireless power transfer, thereby reducing losses and improving transfer efficiency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maniktala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OO et al., hereinafter OO, US Publication No. 2016/0141097 .
Regarding Claim 9, Maniktala does not explicitly teach a dielectric substrate having a first part that extends in the first plane and a second part that extends in the second plane; and
wherein said first parts of the conductive traces are supported by the first part of the dielectric substrate and the said second parts of the conductive traces are supported by the second part of the dielectric substrate.
OO teaches a dielectric substrate having a first part that extends in the first plane and a second part that extends in the second plane (OO Fig. 3 and paragraph [0026], wherein the planar sections of the coil are on a dielectric layer); and
wherein said first parts of the conductive traces are supported by the first part of the dielectric substrate and the said second parts of the conductive traces are supported by the second part of the dielectric substrate (OO Fig. 3 and paragraph [0026], wherein the planar sections of the coil are on and supported by the dielectric layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maniktala and OO because the combination would allow the bent coil of Manikatala to be constructed using the method of constructing a bent coil with a dielectric layer as taught by OO, yielding the predictable results of an established manufacturing methodology to fabricate the devices of Maniktala.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maniktala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin, WO 2018/064518.
Regarding Claim 10, Maniktala further teaches a 3D resonant wireless charging system comprising:
the resonator coil of claim 1 (Maniktala Figs. 2 and 3, see bent coils); and
a control system configured to enable control of current direction (Maniktala paragraph [0019], wherein the power circuit generates a sinusoidal wave which changes and controls the current direction).
Maniktala does not explicitly teach a push-pull Class E power amplifier (PA) or a class EF2 PA; and
a control system configured to enable control of current direction supplied to the coil responsive to a load condition.
Lin teaches a push-pull Class E power amplifier (PA) or a class EF2 PA (Lin paragraph [0023], wherein class E power amplifiers are utilized); and
a control system configured to enable control of current direction supplied to the coil responsive to a load condition (Lin paragraphs [0040]-[0045], wherein the control circuit controls the current supplied to the coils in response to the load, the current waveform being sinusoidal which changes and controls the current direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Maniktala and Lin to apply the known technique of load responsive current control in wireless power transfer as taught by Lin to improve on the wireless power transfer as taught by Maniktala, yielding the predictable results of improved wireless power transfer, thereby reducing losses and improving transfer efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
/ERIC D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851