DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are amended
Claim 6 is cancelled
Claim 21 is new
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jochai (US 20230221778 A1) in view of Zaheer (US 20190173317 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Jochai teaches that a bracket (170 and 172 formed the bracket; Fig. 13) comprising:
mounting holes (not labeled; hole in element 172 in Fig. 13) disposed in a rectangular pattern ({172, 170} Fig. 13; para 0102) to permit passage of mounting fasteners (190, see para 0102) to mount an electronic device (106) to the bracket;
Jochai does not teach that an inductive coil positioned to provide a magnetic field to a receiver coil of the electronic device to provide electrical power to the electronic device while mechanically supporting the electronic device via the mounting fasteners.
However, Zaheer teaches that an inductive coil (402, Fig. 3; para 0040-0041) positioned to provide a magnetic field (see Fig. 5) to a receiver coil (404) of the electronic device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inductive coil positioned to provide a magnetic field to a receiver coil of the electronic device to provide a path for magnetic flux of the magnetic field, which includes main flux and side flux (see para 0010).
Although, modified Jochai explicitly does not disclose the functional characteristic “to provide electrical power to the electronic device while mechanically supporting the electronic device via the mounting fasteners” is not patentable over modified Jochai, because, the limitation is directed to function or characteristic of claimed structure. Each of the limitation has been fully considered to the extent that the structure taught by modified Jochai, in fig. 13, in configuration of Zaheer with fig. 4, is reasonably capable of functioning or having the characteristic claimed. Basis in fact is provided by the fact that modified Jochai, in fig. 4, in configuration of Zaheer with fig. 4 teaches all of the structural features of the claimed limitation such as bracket, mounting hole, an inductive and receiver coil.
Moreover, according to section 2114 of the MPEP, specifically, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the prior art of reference modified Jochai, in fig. 13, in configuration of Zaheer with fig. 4, teaches claimed structure, Fed. Cir 1997, in view of the above, gave clear guidance that mere absence of functional limitation “to provide electrical power to the electronic device while mechanically supporting the electronic device via the mounting fasteners” will not defeat the teaching of prior art. Therefore, claim limitation “the filler includes a material having a thermal coefficient sufficient to compensate for differences between thermal expansion of the at least one of the primary and secondary magnetic cores and the base” is not patentable over modified Jochai.
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jochai teaches the mounting holes conform to a Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) profile (see Jochai’s para 0054).
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jochai teaches that the bracket except the bracket is to support a second electronic device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the bracket is to support a second electronic device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). (i.e. an ordinary skill of the art can easily duplicate a second electronic device on element 108 at the opposite side of the first electronic device 106 in Jocha’s Fig. 13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the bracket is to support a second electronic device as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application.
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 3, the modified Jochai teaches that further comprising second mounting holes (i.e. hole on the plate 170 in Jochai’s Fig. 13) , wherein the mounting fasteners are to be disposed in a first direction (i.e. horizontal direction of element 190 on plate 172 from left to right in Fig. 13) through the mounting holes to mount the electronic device, and wherein second mounting fasteners (i.e. element 190 on plate 170; see para 0102) are to be disposed in a second direction (construed from Fig. 13) opposite from the first direction through the second mounting holes to mount the second electronic device (as explained in claim 3 analysis in light of MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 3, the modified Jochai teaches that the bracket is to provide the magnetic field (see Zaheer’s para 0040) to the electronic device and to the second electronic device (as explained in claim 3 analysis in light of MPEP 2144.04 (VI--B).
Regarding Claim 7:
As applied to claim 3, the modified Jochai teaches an inductive coil except the bracket comprises a second inductive coil to provide a second magnetic field to the second electronic device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the bracket comprises a second inductive coil to provide a second magnetic field to the second electronic device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the bracket comprises a second inductive coil to provide a second magnetic field to the second electronic device as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application.
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jochai teaches that the bracket comprises a mounting plate (406, see Zaheer’s Fig. 4; para 0040-0041) that includes the mounting holes (not labeled; i.e. gap between 406 in Fig. 4), and wherein the inductive coil is attached to the mounting plate.
Regarding Claim 9:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jochai teaches that the bracket comprises a mounting plate (406, see Zaheer’s Fig. 4) that includes the mounting holes (not labeled; i.e. gap between 406 in Fig. 4), and wherein the inductive coil is disposed within the mounting plate (construed from Zaheer’s Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jochai teaches that a power interface (248, Jochai’s Fig. 15) to receive power from a power source (see Jochai’s para 0104).
Regarding Claim 11:
Jochai teaches that a bracket (170 and 172 formed the bracket; Fig. 13) comprising:
a first mounting plate (170, Fig. 13; para 0102) comprising first mounting holes (not labeled; i.e. hole in element 170 in Fig. 13) disposed in a first rectangular pattern (i.e. 170 is rectangular in shape) to permit passage of first mounting screws (not shown in Fig. 13; construed from the word “screw” in para 0069”) to mount a first electronic device (106) to a first side of the bracket (back side on the element 170 in Fig. 13);
a second mounting plate (172) comprising second mounting holes (not labeled; i.e. hole in element 172 in Fig. 13) disposed in a second rectangular pattern (i.e. 172 is rectangular in shape) to permit passage of second mounting screws to mount a second electronic device (as explained in claim 3 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)) to a second side of the bracket (front side on the element 172 in Fig. 13), such that the bracket is disposed between the first electronic device and the second electronic device;
Jochai does not teach that an inductive coil to provide a magnetic field to the electronic device to provide electrical power to the first electronic device.
However, Zaheer teaches that an inductive coil (402, Fig. 3; para 0040-0041) positioned to provide a magnetic field (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inductive coil positioned to provide a magnetic field to provide a path for magnetic flux of the magnetic field, which includes main flux and side flux (see para 0010).
Although, modified Jochai explicitly does not disclose the functional characteristic “to provide electrical power to the first electronic device” is not patentable over modified Jochai, because, the limitation is directed to function or characteristic of claimed structure. Each of the limitation has been fully considered to the extent that the structure taught by modified Jochai, in fig. 13, in configuration of Zaheer with fig. 4, is reasonably capable of functioning or having the characteristic claimed. Basis in fact is provided by the fact that modified Jochai, in fig. 4, in configuration of Zaheer with fig. 4 teaches all of the structural features of the claimed limitation such as bracket, mounting hole, an inductive and receiver coil.
Moreover, according to section 2114 of the MPEP, specifically, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the prior art of reference modified Jochai, in fig. 13, in configuration of Zaheer with fig. 4, teaches claimed structure, Fed. Cir 1997, in view of the above, gave clear guidance that mere absence of functional limitation “to provide electrical power to the first electronic device” will not defeat the teaching of prior art. Therefore, claim limitation “the filler includes a material having a thermal coefficient sufficient to compensate for differences between thermal expansion of the at least one of the primary and secondary magnetic cores and the base” is not patentable over modified Jochai.
Regarding Claim 12:
As applied to claim 11, the modified Jochai teaches the first side and the second side are outer opposite sides of the bracket (construed from Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 13:
As applied to claim 11, the modified Jochai teaches a mounting structure (406, Zaheer’s Fig. 4) to attach the bracket to a support object (i.e. base in Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 14:
As applied to claim 11, the modified Jochai teaches an inductive coil except the bracket comprises a second inductive coil to provide a second magnetic field to the second electronic device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the bracket comprises a second inductive coil to provide a second magnetic field to the second electronic device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the bracket comprises a second inductive coil to provide a second magnetic field to the second electronic device as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application.
Regarding Claim 15:
As applied to claim 14, the modified Jochai teaches that a power interface (248, Jochai’s Fig. 15) to provide first power to the inductive coil and a second power interface to provide second power to the second inductive coil.
Regarding Claim 16:
Jochai teaches that a bracket (170 and 172 formed the bracket; Fig. 13) comprising:
a mounting plate (170, Fig. 13; para 0102) comprising first mounting holes (not labeled; i.e. hole in element 170 in Fig. 13) disposed in a first rectangular pattern (i.e. 170 is rectangular in shape) to permit passage of first mounting screws (not shown in Fig. 13; construed from the word “screw” in para 0069”) to mount a first electronic device (106) to a first side of the bracket (back side on the element 170 in Fig. 13);
a second mounting plate (172) comprising second mounting holes (not labeled; i.e. hole in element 172 in Fig. 13) disposed in a second rectangular pattern (i.e. 172 is rectangular in shape) to permit passage of second mounting screws to mount a second electronic device (as explained in claim 3 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)) to a second side of the bracket (front side on the element 172 in Fig. 13) such
that the bracket is disposed between the first electronic device and the second electronic device and the first electronic device and to the second electronic device.
Jochai does not teach that an inductive coil disposed within the mounting plate to provide a magnetic field to the first electronic device and to the second electronic device.
However, Zaheer teaches that an inductive coil (402, Fig. 3; para 0040-0041) within the mounting plate (406, Fig. 4) to provide a magnetic field (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an inductive coil disposed within the mounting plate to provide a magnetic field to the first electronic device and to the second electronic device to provide a path for magnetic flux of the magnetic field, which includes main flux and side flux (see para 0010).
Regarding Claim 19:
As applied to claim 16, the modified Jochai teaches that the first mounting screws are to be disposed in an opposite direction (construed from Fig. 13) from the second mounting screws.
Regarding Claim 20:
As applied to claim 16, the modified Jochai teaches that the electronic device is a computing device and the second electronic device is a display device (see Jochai’s Abstract or para 0104; ; i.e. modified Jochai’s electronic device and the second electronic device could be a computer and display, respectively).
Regarding Claim 21:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jochai teaches the inductive coil and power interface (248, Jochai’s Fig. 15) but silent on a driver circuit coupled to the inductive coil, the driver circuit to control current supplied to the inductive coil based on a selected power profile.
However, such features are well-known and the Examiner takes Official Notice (see MPEP § 2144.03.A) that a driver circuit coupled to the inductive coil, the driver circuit to control current supplied to the inductive coil based on a selected power profile.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of what is well known into the combination of Jochai and Zaheer to have a driver circuit coupled to the inductive coil, the driver circuit to control current supplied to the inductive coil based on a selected power profile.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jochai and Zaheer in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing known structures to ensure successful device operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference, and/or newly found prior art reference(s).
Applicant's arguments regarding election of Election/Restriction with traverse filed on 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue, at least in part, “Each figure illustrates an example of a bracket and these examples are not intended to be mutually exclusive. As explicitly stated in Present Application [0040], "FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating a perspective view of an example of a bracket 580. The bracket 580 may be an example of the bracket 112 described in relation to FIG.1, the bracket 202 described in relation to FIG. 2, and/or the bracket 322 described in relation to\9792506. FIG. 3." (Emphasis added). As such, at least the bracket of FIG. 5 could be considered an obvious variant of the brackets of FIGS. 1, 2, or 3. As another example, para. [0026] recites, "FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a bracket 202. The bracket 202 [of FIG. 21 may be an example of the bracket 112 described in relation to FIG. 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason. The species 1-5 are differing in elements arrangement. For an example the arrangement of the elements of figure 2 [see element 204, 208] is different from what is shown in figure 1 [it has elements 120 and 112 and not driver circuit], and different from [elements, 340, 326, 344 and 342] of figure 3, and so on for the rest of the species. Furthermore for the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different subclasses or electronic resources or non-patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue, at least in part, “The Office appears to equate Jochai's wall 172 with the claimed bracket. However, Jochai describes 172 as a wall having an outward-facing surface configured to couple to an interface area of a support structure. See Jochai, [[0098]. In other words, Jochai's wall 172 is not the support structure itself and is not described as a bracket that is configured to mechanically support the electronic device via the mounting fasteners as claimed. Jochai further fails to teach an electronic device with a receiver coil as claimed. Therefore, Jochai does not teach an inductive coil positioned to provide a magnetic field to a receiver coil of the electronic device such that the bracket can provide electrical power while mechanically supporting the device, as recited in claim 1” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, first of all the “bracket” has no special definition in specs. Second, it is noted that [see the link, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bracket] one of the meaning of “bracket” is “a support, or the like to hold or bear the weight of a shelf, part of a cornice, etc.”. Therefore, with broadest reasonable claim interpretation, Jochai clearly shows in Fig. 11 that the bracket (170 and 172) support or hold weight of element 106.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for substantially the same reasons presented above regarding Applicant's arguments for independent claims 11 and 16.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST).
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 https:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 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.
/KAZI HOSSAIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837