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 .
Remarks
Examiner notes that in Applicant’s Amendments filed 4/20/2026, the first line provides the instruction to “Please cancel claim 17 without prejudice or disclaimer.” However, Claim 17 is still present in the listing of claims and referred to in Applicant’s Arguments. As such, Examiner assumes that this instruction is unintentional and Claim 17 is still pending in the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 16:
Lines 9-10, the phrase “the insert portion being fixed to the insert portion” is redundant, as the insert portion is inherently fixed to itself.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauterel et al., hereinafter Sauterel, US Publication No. 2017/0256978.
Regarding Claim 16, Sauterel teaches an electronic device (Sauterel Fig. 2, see input device 200) comprising:
a housing forming at least a portion of an exterior of the electronic device (Sauterel Fig. 2 and paragraph [0039], see housing 220);
a wireless charging structure at least partially positioned in a recess formed in an inner surface of the housing (Sauterel Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0039] and [0041], see removable modular insert having inductive coils within the cavity 260); and
a circuit board disposed in the housing and electrically connected with the wireless charging structure (Sauterel Fig. 3 and paragraph [0041]-[0042], see board having a processor 350 that is connected to and controls the operation of the coil),
wherein the wireless charging structure includes:
a wireless charging coil (Sauterel Fig. 3 and paragraph [0041], see coil 390); and
an insert portion formed to surround at least a portion of the wireless charging coil (Sauterel Fig. 3, see modular insert portions surrounding the coil 390), the insert portion being fixed to the insert portion (Sauterel Fig. 3, wherein the modular insert portions are fixed together is a modular insert); and
wherein the insert portion includes a guide slot configured to align a position of the wireless charging coil (Sauterel Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0049]-[0051], wherein the modular insert may include a hybrid approach to coupling, including utilizing screws which have screwholes or guide slots).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauterel, US Publication No. 2017/0256978 in view of Shin et al., hereinafter Shin, KR 2014-0100239.
Regarding Claim 1, Sauterel teaches an electronic device (Sauterel Fig. 2, see input device 200) comprising:
a housing forming at least a portion of an exterior of the electronic device (Sauterel Fig. 2 and paragraph [0039], see housing 220);
a wireless charging structure positioned in a recess of the housing (Sauterel Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0039] and [0041], see removable modular insert having inductive coils within the cavity 260); and
a circuit board disposed in the housing and electrically connected with the wireless charging structure (Sauterel Fig. 3 and paragraph [0041]-[0042], see board having a processor 350 that is connected to and controls the operation of the coil), wherein the wireless charging structure includes:
a wireless charging coil (Sauterel Fig. 3 and paragraph [0041], see coil 390); and
an insert portion formed to surround at least a portion of the wireless charging coil (Sauterel Fig. 3, see modular insert portions surrounding the coil 390).
wherein the wireless charging coil is fixed to the insert portion (Sauterel Fig. 3, wherein the coil 390 is attached to the modular insert).
Sauterel does not explicitly teach wherein at least one protrusion configured for coupling with the insert portion is formed on a surface defining the recess of the housing, and the insert portion includes at least one receiving portion disposed along an edge of the wireless charging structure
wherein the at least one receiving portion is configured to receive the at least one protrusion to physically couple the wireless charging structure to the housing.
Shin teaches wherein at least one protrusion configured for coupling with the insert portion is formed on a surface defining the recess of the housing, and the insert portion includes at least one receiving portion disposed along an edge of the wireless charging structure (Shin Fig. 8 and translation page 4, wherein protrusions 211 are formed in the groove/recess 210 of the base 200 to attach to the edges of coil module 100), and
wherein the at least one receiving portion is configured to receive the at least one protrusion to physically couple the wireless charging structure to the housing (Shin Fig. 8 and translation page 4, wherein mounting the coil module 100 to the base 200 couples receiving portions of the coil module 100 to the protrusions 211).
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 Sauterel and Shin because the combination would allow the implementation of the mechanical coupling of a wireless coil structure as taught by Sauterel in Sauterel paragraph [0040] to be performed by the mechanical coupling using protrusions as taught by Shin, yielding the predictable results of an established structure and methodology to secure a wireless coil structure to a recess in a base.
Regarding Claim 2, Sauterel further teaches wherein the insert portion includes a guide slot configured to align a position of the wireless charging coil and limit eccentricity (Sauterel Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0049]-[0051], wherein the modular insert may include a hybrid approach to coupling, including utilizing screws which have screwholes or guide slots, and are used for alignment and therefore reduce eccentricity).
Regarding Claim 8, Sauterel further teaches wherein the housing is formed of a first material, and the insert portion of the wireless charging structure is formed of a second material different from the first material (Sauterel paragraph [0049], wherein the modular insert and the housing may be formed of a plurality of different materials).
Regarding Claim 11, Sauterel further teaches wherein the wireless charging structure further includes terminals for electrical connection with the circuit board, as conductive lines extending from the wireless charging coil (Sauterel Fig. 3 and paragraph [0042], see inductive coil contacts 330 and 340 or internal wires that connect the coil to the processor).
Regarding Claim 13, Sauterel further teaches wherein the recess of the housing is formed to have an increased surface area in contact with the insert portion to couple with the wireless charging structure (Sauterel Fig. 2, wherein the recess is formed to have increased surface area in contact with the modular insert).
Regarding Claim 14, Sauterel further teaches wherein the housing coupled with the wireless charging structure comprises a rear plate (Sauterel Fig. 2, see bottom of the housing 220 of the input device).
Regarding Claim 15, Sauterel further teaches wherein a first area of the wireless charging structure, in which the wireless charging coil is disposed, is positioned on an inner surface of the rear plate (Sauterel Fig. 2, wherein the modular insert is positioned on an inner surface of the bottom of the housing), and a second area of the wireless charging structure, which extends from an edge of the first area, is disposed up to a side surface of the rear plate (Sauterel Fig. 2, wherein the sides of the modular insert are disposed along the sides of the cavity formed by the bottom of the housing).
Claims 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauterel modified by Shin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagman et al., hereinafter Wagman, US Publication No. 2015/0302971.
Regarding Claim 9, Sauterel modified by Shin does not explicitly teach wherein an injected material for the housing includes a thermoplastic material, and wherein an injected material for the insert portion includes a thermosetting material.
Wagman teaches wherein an injected material for the housing includes a thermoplastic material, and wherein an injected material for the insert portion includes a thermosetting material (Wagman paragraph [0036], wherein materials to form the coil substrate, i.e. insert portion, includes thermoplastic or thermoset material, which when taken in view of Sauterel paragraph [0049] also teaches that the housing may be made of such materials).
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 Sauterel modified by Shin and Wagman to apply the known technique of forming induction coils in molded shapes as taught by Wagman to improve on the induction coils as taught by Sauterel modified by Shin, yielding the predictable results of more versatile shapes and improved electrical performance for electronic devices.
Regarding Claim 10, Sauterel modified by Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless charging coil is molded along with the insert portion and forms a woven structure along with the insert portion hardened over time by heat to be coupled to form an integrated structure.
Wagman teaches wherein the wireless charging coil is molded along with the insert portion and forms a woven structure along with the insert portion hardened over time by heat to be coupled to form an integrated structure (Wagman paragraphs [0035]-[0036], wherein the coil is a molded coil that is cured, i.e. hardened over time by heat in thermoset materials).
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 Sauterel modified by Shin and Wagman to apply the known technique of forming induction coils in molded shapes as taught by Wagman to improve on the induction coils as taught by Sauterel modified by Shin, yielding the predictable results of more versatile shapes and improved electrical performance for electronic devices.
Regarding Claim 12, Sauterel modified by Shin does not explicitly teach wherein, for coupling between the housing and the wireless charging structure, at least a portion of an edge of the recess of the housing forms an inversely tapered shape.
Wagman teaches wherein, for coupling between the housing and the wireless charging structure, at least a portion of an edge of the recess of the housing forms an inversely tapered shape (Wagman Fig. 6 and paragraph [0052], wherein the shapes of the cavities of the housings include inversely tapered shapes).
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 Sauterel modified by Shin and Wagman to apply the known technique of forming induction coils in molded shapes as taught by Wagman to improve on the induction coils as taught by Sauterel modified by Shin, yielding the predictable results of more versatile shapes and improved electrical performance for electronic devices.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauterel as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shin, KR 2014-0100239.
Regarding Claim 17, Sauterel does not explicitly teach at least one protrusion for coupling with the insert portion is formed on a surface defining the recess of the housing; and
wherein the insert portion includes at least one receiving portion disposed along an edge of the wireless charging structure configured to receive the protrusion to physically couple the wireless charging structure to the housing.
Shin teaches at least one protrusion for coupling with the insert portion is formed on a surface defining the recess of the housing (Shin Fig. 8 and translation page 4, wherein protrusions 211 are formed in the groove/recess 210 of the base 200 to attach to the coil module 100); and
wherein the insert portion includes at least one receiving portion disposed along an edge of the wireless charging structure configured to receive the protrusion to physically couple the wireless charging structure to the housing (Shin Fig. 8 and translation page 4, wherein mounting the coil module 100 to the base 200 couples receiving portions on edges of the coil module 100 to the protrusions 211).
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 Sauterel and Shin because the combination would allow the implementation of the mechanical coupling of a wireless coil structure as taught by Sauterel in Sauterel paragraph [0040] to be performed by the mechanical coupling using protrusions as taught by Shin, yielding the predictable results of an established structure and methodology to secure a wireless coil structure to a recess in a base.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauterel as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wagman, US Publication No. 2015/0302971.
Regarding Claim 18, Sauterel does not explicitly teach wherein an injected material of the housing includes a thermoplastic material, and an injected material of the insert portion includes a thermosetting material.
Wagman teaches wherein an injected material of the housing includes a thermoplastic material, and an injected material of the insert portion includes a thermosetting material (Wagman paragraph [0036], wherein materials to form the coil substrate, i.e. insert portion, includes thermoplastic or thermoset material, which when taken in view of Sauterel paragraph [0049] also teaches that the housing may be made of such materials).
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 Sauterel and Wagman to apply the known technique of forming induction coils in molded shapes as taught by Wagman to improve on the induction coils as taught by Sauterel, yielding the predictable results of more versatile shapes and improved electrical performance for electronic devices.
Regarding Claim 19, Sauterel does not explicitly teach wherein the recess of the housing forms an inversely tapered shape at an edge thereof to couple the housing with the wireless charging structure.
Wagman teaches wherein the recess of the housing forms an inversely tapered shape at an edge thereof to couple the housing with the wireless charging structure (Wagman Fig. 6 and paragraph [0052], wherein the shapes of the cavities of the housings include inversely tapered shapes).
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 Sauterel and Wagman to apply the known technique of forming induction coils in molded shapes as taught by Wagman to improve on the induction coils as taught by Sauterel, yielding the predictable results of more versatile shapes and improved electrical performance for electronic devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record, whether singly or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following claim limitations:
wherein the guide slot includes:
a first guide slot positioned to wholly or partially surround an outer line of the wireless charging coil, and
a second guide slot configured to allow the wireless charging coil to maintain a height from a surface of the insert portion.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record, whether singly or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following claim limitations:
wherein the guide slot includes:
a first guide slot positioned to wholly or partially surround an outer line of the wireless charging coil, and
a second guide slot formed to allow the wireless charging coil to maintain a same height from a surface of the insert portion.
Claims 4-7 would be allowable based on their dependency to Claim 3 for the reasons stated above.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the guide slot is configured to align the coil’s position” so the “coil remains leveled and eccentricity is prevented or reduced”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claim language only requires that guide slot aligns a position of the wireless coil, which Sauterel teaches above in Sauterel Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0049]-[0051]. That is, the screwholes or guide slots in Sauterel align the wireless coil position within the recess based on the modular insert. 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 moot in view of the new grounds of rejection or 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