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 .
Claim Objections
Previous objection to Claims 4-10 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendments filed 6/24/2026.
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 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 loop portion extending in a first plane (Maniktala Fig. 2 and paragraph [0018], see coil 214 having a first side portion 262);
a second loop portion extending in a second plane different from the first plane (Maniktala Fig. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0018] and [0021], see coil 214 having a center portion 264, wherein the angle 310 between the first side portion 262 and the center portion 264 is approximately 90 to 175 degrees, with a 90 degree angle indicating that the first side portion and the center portion extend in planes that are orthogonal to each other); and
a third loop portion extending in the first plane (Maniktala Fig. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0018] and [0021], see coil 214 having a second side portion 266, wherein the angle 312 between the second side portion 266 and the center portion 264 is approximately 90 to 175 degrees, with a 90 degree angle indicating that the second side portion and the center portion extend in planes that are orthogonal to each other, which makes the first side portion and second side portion in the same plane);
the second loop portion interconnecting the first loop portion and the third loop portion such that the first loop portion, the second loop portion, and the third loop portion form a continuous conductive path of the resonator coil (Maniktala Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0017] and [0021], wherein the turns of the coil are continuous and therefore form a continuous conductive path).
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 charging space comprises a first portion and a second portion located on opposite sides of the second loop portion (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).
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 first loop portion and the third loop portion are supported by the first part of the dielectric substrate and the second loop portion is 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 first loop portion and the third loop portion are supported by the first part of the dielectric substrate and the second loop portion is 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.
Claims 10 and 12 are 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Maniktala does not explicitly teach 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 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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1 that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “a first loop portion extending in a first plane, a second loop portion extending in a second plane different from the first plane, and a third loop portion extending in the first plane, wherein the second loop portion interconnects the first loop portion and the third loop portion such that the first loop portion, the second loop portion, and the third loop portion form a continuous conductive path of the resonator coil,” Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above in the rejection of the claims in addition to the following.
Examiner first directs Applicant to Maniktala Fig. 2 and paragraph [0018], wherein a coil 214 has a first side portion 262, a center portion 264, and a second side portion 266 corresponding to a first loop portion, a second loop portion, and a third loop portion as defined by the claims. Continuing on in Maniktala Fig. 3 and paragraph [0021], the angles 310 and 312 are approximately 90 to 175 degrees. In the situation where both angle 310 and 312 are 90 degree angles, this would indicate that the first side portion and center portion and the second side portion and the center portion are orthogonal to each other. This would also indicate that the first side portion and the second side portion are extending in the same plane, with the center portion extending in a plane orthogonal to the side portions. Also as shown in Fig. 2, the coil 214 is continuous, and therefore forms a continuous conductive path. This meets the claim limitations as currently claimed and Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding the remaining independent and dependent claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons stated above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights