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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 1, 2022. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-10 and 16-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “surface finishes selected to visually match the
housing”. It is unclear how the surface finishes visually match the housing. Claims 2-10 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a surface finish selected to visually match the housing”. It is unclear how the surface finish visually matches the housing. Claims 17-20 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a surface finish selected to visually match the housing”. It is unclear how the surface finish visually matches the housing.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a surface finish selected to visually match the housing”. It is unclear how the surface finish visually matches the housing. Claims 22-25 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a surface finished selected to visually match the housing”. It is unclear how the surface finish visually matches the housing. Claims 24-25 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a surface finish selected to visually match the housing”. It is unclear how the surface finish visually matches the housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication of Xu et al. (2016/0344195).
As to claim 1, Xu discloses an electronic device (320,620,810,820,1020) comprising: a housing (310a,610a,811,821,1010) having a window therethrough (see Figures 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10); a wireless power transfer coil (324, 624, 714, 724) disposed inside the housing adjacent the window (see Figures 3, 6, and 7); and a non-metallic cover (314, 614, 811a-c, 821a-c, 1020, the cover is non-metallic because it has magnetic particles in polymer, see paragraph [0039], lines 5-11 and paragraph [0047], lines 1-5) disposed within the window that protects the wireless power transfer coil, the non-metallic cover incorporating at least one ferromagnetic region (see paragraph [0039], lines 5-11 and paragraph [0047], lines 1-5) that improves magnetic coupling of the wireless power transfer coil to a corresponding wireless power transfer coil of another device by providing a high magnetic permeability flux path; wherein the non-metallic cover and the at least one ferromagnetic region have surface finishes selected to visually match or coordinate with the housing (see Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10, magnetically permeable material regions 314, 614, 811a-c, 821a-c, 1020 correspond to the non-metallic cover with a ferromagnetic region to be flush with the housing 310a, 610a, 811, 821, 1010).
As to claim 2, the non-metallic cover is formed from a polymer material (see paragraph [0039], lines 9-11 and paragraph [0047], lines 1-5).
As to claim 3, the non-metallic cover is plastic or rubber (see paragraph [0039], lines 9-11 and paragraph [0047], lines 1-5).
As to claim 4, the at least one ferromagnetic region has one or more dimensions selected to match a corresponding dimension of a core of the wireless power transfer coil (see Figure 8, regions 811a-c and 821a-c are aligned with core legs 713a-c and 723a-c).
As to claim 5, the at last one ferromagnetic region has a thickness selected to reduce or eliminate an air gap between the core of the wireless power transfer coil and a core of the corresponding wireless power transfer coil of another device (see Figures 6 and 8).
As to claim 6, the ferromagnetic region is formed from a non-metallic matrix or substrate material with ferromagnetic particles disposed therein (see paragraph [0039], lines 9-13 and paragraph [0047], lines 1-5).
As to claim 8, the non-metallic matrix or substrate material is the same material as the non-metallic cover (see paragraph [0039], lines 9-13 ana paragraph [0047], lines 1-5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of the US patent of Qiu et al. (2021/0050744).
As to claim 7, Xu discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above, except
for the housing being metallic. Qiu discloses a wirelessly charged electronic device, wherein the device is in a metallic housing (325) (see paragraph [0035], lines 30-33, “Case 325 may be made of any number of materials that may be or include … metal”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a metallic housing, because metallic housings are common in wirelessly charged electronic devices.
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of the US patent application publication of Jung et al. (2014/0176288).
As to claim 9, Xu discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above,
except for the ferromagnetic particles being powdered causing the ferromagnetic region to have an anisotropic magnetic flux characteristic. Jung discloses an electromagnetic induction module for wireless charging including a ferromagnetic region formed from a substrate material with ferromagnetic particles disposed therein (see paragraph [0015], lines 3-4; paragraph [0019], lines 1-2; paragraph [0026], lines 1-2; and paragraph [0040], lines 1-3), wherein the ferromagnetic particles are powdered so as to cause the ferromagnetic region to have an anisotropic magnetic flux characteristic (see paragraph [0019], lines 1-2; paragraph [0026], lines 1-2; and paragraph [0040], lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to have used a substrate material with powdered ferromagnetic particles disposed therein, as taught by Jung, in the device of Xu, in order to provide a device with reduced thickness of the wireless charging element and improve the charging efficiency.
As to claim 10, Xu discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above,
except for the ferromagnetic particles being flakes and oriented within the ferromagnetic region so as to cause the ferromagnetic region to have an anisotropic magnetic flux characteristic. Jung discloses an electromagnetic induction module for wireless charging including a ferromagnetic region formed from a substrate material with ferromagnetic particles disposed therein (see paragraph [0015], lines 3-4; paragraph [0019], lines 1-2; paragraph [0026], lines 1-2; and paragraph [0040], lines 1-3), wherein the ferromagnetic particles are flakes oriented within the ferromagnetic region so as to cause the ferromagnetic region to have an anisotropic magnetic flux characteristic (see paragraph [0019], lines 1-2; paragraph [0026], lines 1-2; and paragraph [0040], lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to have used a substrate material with ferromagnetic flakes disposed therein, as taught by Jung, in the device of Xu, in order to provide a device with reduced thickness of the wireless charging element and improve the charging efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 16-20 contain allowable subject matter because none of the prior art of
record discloses or suggests at least one of the non-metallic cover and ferromagnetic region coated with a coating material to provide a surface finish, in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Claims 21-25 contain allowable subject matter because none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the ferromagnetic particles being flakes oriented within the ferromagnetic region so as to cause the ferromagnetic region to have an anisotropic magnetic flux characteristic, in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 with regard to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant states that the specification clearly describes matching the housing as “providing an aesthetically pleasing look”, and that nothing in Xu teaches or suggests selection of a surface finish of the covers to match the housing in the sense of “providing an aesthetically pleasing look”. However, providing an “aesthetically pleasing look” is subjective and depends on the opinion of a person looking at the housing. “Providing an aesthetically pleasing look” is therefore not a patentable distinction.
Applicant’s additional arguments, see Remarks, page 9, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings and claims, and the rejections of claims 16-25 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been withdrawn.
With regard to claims 16-20, the Applicant also states that Nagai describes
element 30 in Figure 6 as being “an elastic, magnetically permeable material” and thus more akin to Applicant’s recited cover than to a coating. The Examiner agrees that this overcomes the rejection of record.
With regard to claims 21-25, the Applicant also states that while Jung recites magnetic flakes, Jung does not disclose or suggest orienting the flakes to achieve the desired anisotropic magnetic flux characteristic. The Examiner agrees that this overcomes the rejection of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAL KAPLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8587. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/HAL KAPLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights