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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged. Subsequently, Group II, claims 10-16 are considered withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the amplifier, the one or more capacitors, and the one or more filters along with their respective connections must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 is objected to as being improperly presented due to issues with respect to claim drafting. Claim 2 recites, “wherein the antenna comprises a three-dimensional antenna comprising a conductor…” which, as written, introduces a new and distinct structural element, rather than further defining the previously introduced structure. However, based on the Specification and context of the claims, the newly introduced claim limitations are understood to further define and limit the previously introduced structure rather than to introduce a separate or distinct element. Accordingly, the claim will be examined as further defining the pre-existing structure, and not as reciting new structure. For examination purposes, the examiner will examine claim 2 as, “… wherein the antenna is a three-dimensional antenna, wherein the continuous conductor is wound around a dielectric material…” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 is objected to as being improperly presented due to issues with respect to claim drafting. Claim 3 recites, “wherein the antenna comprises a conductor electrodeposited…” which, as written, introduces a new and distinct structural element, rather than further defining the previously introduced structure. However, based on the Specification and context of the claims, the newly introduced claim limitations are understood to further define and limit the previously introduced structure rather than to introduce a separate or distinct element. Accordingly, the claim will be examined as further defining the pre-existing structure, and not as reciting new structure. For examination purposes, the examiner will examine claim 3 as, “… wherein the continuous conductor of the antenna is electrodeposited…” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 is objected to as being improperly presented due to issues with respect to claim drafting. Claim 5 recites, “further comprising a parallel resonant class E switching amplifier coupled to the antenna” which, as written, introduces a new and distinct structural element, rather than further defining the previously introduced structure. However, based on the Specification and context of the claims, the newly introduced claim limitations are understood to further define and limit the previously introduced structure rather than to introduce a separate or distinct element. Accordingly, the claim will be examined as further defining the pre-existing structure, and not as reciting new structure. For examination purposes, the examiner will examine claim 5 as, “The wireless charging system of claim 1, wherein the amplifier is a parallel resonant class E switching amplifier coupled to the antenna” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites, “…separated from each other by a distances at least equal to 1 inch…” (emphasis added) which is a minor grammatical error. It appears “a distances” is intended to be “distances”. Furthermore, it appears “at least equal to 1 inch” is more simply expressed as “at least 1 inch”. The examiner will examine the claim as, “…separated from each other by distances of at least 1 inch…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-2, 4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057) in view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kirby et al. discloses a wireless charging system integrated into a vehicle console (Fig. 26, transmit antennas 1025, 1035, and 1037 integrated into vehicle console 1020, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0180), comprising: an antenna comprising a continuous conductor with no breaks or radio frequency discontinuities (Fig. 26, one of transmit antenna 1025, 1035, and 1037, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0180-0182. See also, Fig. 21 which shows the respective transmit antennas of Fig. 26 in further detail, including transmit antenna(s) 710 shown as continuous loop antenna with no breaks, as well as paragraphs 0137-0138), and wherein the antenna is disposed within or partially within one or more contours of the vehicle console (Fig. 26, transmit antennas 1025, 1035, and 1037 integrated into vehicle console 1020, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0180-0182, etc.); an amplifier configured to drive a signal to the antenna (Fig. 21, amplifier 720 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0138 which discloses a power amplifier 720 for providing the driving signal to the transmit antenna(s) 710); and, one or more capacitors configured to excite the antenna into resonance (Fig. 21, capacitor(s) 716 and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0140-0141, etc. which disclose the utilization of capacitors to alter the resonant frequency of the transmit antenna(s) 710). Kirby fails to teach wherein the continuous conductor has a thickness that is approximately equal to 10 um or greater.
However, Yankowitz discloses wherein the continuous conductor has a thickness that is approximately equal to 10 um or greater (see, for example, paragraph 0036 which discloses the transmitter coil(s) include a conductor with “a thickness of only 40 um… makes it a highly efficient and ideal resonator for wireless charging applications.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the continuous conductor of the antenna of Kirby to have a thickness that is approximately equal to 10 um or greater, as taught within Yankowitz, to improve the Q-factor and efficiency of the resonant power transfer (see paragraph 0036). Furthermore, the examiner notes that selecting a given thickness for the continuous conductor or the antenna would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Kirby fails to teach wherein the antenna is a three-dimensional antenna, wherein the continuous conductor is wound around a dielectric material at an angle to diminish a proximity effect at an operating frequency of the wireless charging system thereby maintaining a high intrinsic quality factor (Q) of the three-dimensional antenna.
However, Yankowitz discloses wherein the antenna is a three-dimensional antenna (Figs. 1 and 2C, three-dimensional coil array 112 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0036, etc.), wherein the continuous conductor is wound around a dielectric material at an angle to diminish a proximity effect at an operating frequency of the wireless charging system thereby maintaining a high intrinsic quality factor (Q) of the three-dimensional antenna (Figs. 1 and 2C, three-dimensional coil array 112 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0029-0030, 0035-0036, etc. which disclose each transmitter coil in a three-dimensional phased coil array includes a conductor, as well as a support structure, not shown, which is “formed from a dielectric material… to support the spiral geometry of the conductor… the turns for each antenna in the array may be wound at a desired angle to one another to allow more current to pass through each wound of the conductor, thereby diminishing the proximity effect.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the antenna of Kirby as a three-dimensional antenna with its conductor wound around a dielectric material at an angle, as taught within Yankowitz, to allow the transmitter device to compensate for a decrease in the electromagnetic induction of the receive device or devices due to potential positioning shifts, increase the angular flexibility of the devices for the resonant inductive system (see, at least, paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Kirby, in further view of Kirby, discloses wherein the signal comprises a frequency approximately equal to a resonant frequency of the antenna (Fig. 21, amplifier 720 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0138-0140 which disclose the power amplifier 720 provides the driving signal to the transmit antenna(s) 710 in order to allow the transmit antenna(s) in operation to resonate. That is, the frequency of the driving signal of amplifier 720 is an excitation frequency that is approximately equal to a resonant frequency of the antenna to thereby allow the antenna to resonate.).
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Kirby, in further view of Kirby, discloses wherein the antenna is configured to transmit a wireless charging signal to one or more electronic devices (see, at least, Abstract, paragraphs 0137-0142, 0180-0181, etc. which disclose the transmit antenna wirelessly transferring power to receive antennas of respective devices) placed in or around at least one of a cupholder of the vehicle console or a package tray area of the vehicle console (Fig. 26, vehicle console 1020 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0180-0181 which disclose the antenna being integrated into a base of the cup holders 1030, in storage bin 1022, etc. which are “natural locations where many drivers already place their portable electronic equipment”).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057) in view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kesler et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0184338).
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Kirby discloses the continuous conductor of the antenna is integrated into a vehicle console (Fig. 26, transmit antennas 1025, 1035, and 1037 integrated into vehicle console 1020, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0180-0182, etc.). However, while Modified Kirby teach the antenna being integrated with a mechanical part of the vehicle console, Modified Kirby fails to teach wherein the continuous conductor of the antenna is electrodeposited directly onto a mechanical part of the vehicle console.
However, Kesler et al. discloses a conductor structure for an antenna is fabricated by a variety of processes, including electrodeposition (see, at least, paragraph 1061 which discloses coil structures for resonant power systems are comprised of multiple shells of conductors, wherein the shells of conductors are fabricated by electro-deposition). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to directly electrodeposit the continuous conductor of the antenna of Modified Kirby onto a mechanical part of the vehicle console as an alternative known fabrication process to simplify assembly by eliminating the need for separate manufacturing and integration steps.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While Modified Kirby discloses the antenna is disposed within the vehicle console, Modified Kirby fails to teach wherein the antenna is disposed within the vehicle console at least 1 inch or more from one or more conductive structures in the vehicle console thereby improving an intrinsic quality factor (Q) of the antenna.
However, Kesler et al. discloses wherein the antenna is disposed within the vehicle console at least 1 inch or more from one or more conductive structures in the vehicle console thereby improving an intrinsic quality factor (Q) of the antenna (Fig. 67a, antenna 6704 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0724 which discloses establishing a ‘keep out zone’ for the antenna with a spacing exceeding 2.5 cm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Modified Kirby dispose the antenna at least 1 inch or more from one or more conductive structures, as taught within Kesler, to enable efficient wireless power transfer even when the source and device are immersed in or in the vicinity of lossy materials (see, at least, paragraph 0724).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057) in view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badr et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0181826).
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While Modified Kirby discloses the amplifier is coupled to the antenna (Fig. 21, amplifier 720 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0138 which discloses a power amplifier 720 for providing the driving signal to the transmit antenna(s) 710), Modified Kirby fails to teach the amplifier is a parallel resonant class E switching amplifier.
However, Badr et al. discloses a parallel resonant class E switching amplifier (Fig. 10, Class-E amplifier design with parallel resonance topology as shown, and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0021, 0071, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the amplifier of Modified Kirby as a parallel resonant class E switching amplifier, as taught within Badr, to minimize switching losses while providing high power conversion efficiency, as well as reducing the stress on the switching element (see, for example, paragraph 0071).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057) in view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057; embodiment of Fig. 20, hereinafter referred to as ‘K20’).
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 4. Modified Kirby fails to teach further comprising one or more filters.
However, K20 discloses comprising one or more filters configured to receive the signal driven by the amplifier and to provide a filtered signal to the one or more capacitors (Fig. 20, filter 208 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0049, 0071, 0125, etc. which disclose the utilization of a filter to receive a signal from amplifier 210 and provide a signal to the capacitors of the respective matching circuit 206 and transmit antenna 204 as shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Modified Kirby to incorporate a filter, as taught within K20, to filter out harmonics or other unwanted frequencies (see, at least, paragraphs 0049 and 0071).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057) in view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050) in view of Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057; embodiment of Fig. 20, hereinafter referred to as ‘K20’) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Meskens (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0043051).
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Kirby teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 6. Modified Kirby fails to teach wherein two or more of the amplifier, the antenna, the one or more filters, or the one or more capacitors, are physically separated from each other by distances of at least 1 inch, thereby decreasing a cross-coupling loss.
However, Meskens discloses wherein two or more of the amplifier, the antenna, the one or more filters, or the one or more capacitors, are physically separated from each other by distances of at least 1 inch, thereby decreasing a cross-coupling loss (Fig. 4A, TX coil 108 separated from the amplifier 106 by 120 cm, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0044 which discloses two components, the amplifier and the transmission antenna, are physically separated via a 120 cm, which equates to about 47 inches, cable). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the internal transmitter components of Modified Kirby by a respective distance, such as at least 1 inch, as taught within Meskens, to increase heat dissipation between the components, prevent electrical interference between the components, and make the circuit easier to manufacture, repair or troubleshoot given increased spacing and room between the components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N INGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7705. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/JOSEPH N INGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights