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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seyerle in view of Yankowitz and in further view of Yankowitz ‘050.
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, 4-5, 7, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyerle et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0038279) in view of Yankowitz (2018/0294677) and in further view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050; hereinafter ‘050).
Regarding Claim 1:
Seyerle et al. discloses a wireless charging system integrated into a vehicle console (Figs. 1 and 11B, console assembly 10 with charging surface 32 shown in further detail within Fig. 11B comprising charging coil(s) 38, driver 33, etc., and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0026-0028, 0033-0041, 0062, etc.), comprising: an antenna (Fig. 11B, charging coil(s) 38 and its related discussion), and wherein the antenna is disposed within or partially within one or more contours of the vehicle console (Figs. 1 and 11B, charging coils 38 at least partially disposed within an upper contour of the console assembly 10 and its related discussion); an electronics housing containing electronics for the wireless charging system (Fig. 11B, wireless charging module 30 with plate 65 forming a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure for housing driver module 33 comprising driver electronics used to provide power to the inductive charging coil(s) 38, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0028-0029, 0033-0036, 0062, etc.), wherein the electronics housing is disposed below a conductive structure of the vehicle console (Fig. 11B, wireless charging module 30 with plate 65 forming a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0061-0062, etc. which disclose plate 65 being constructed of conductive material to thereby form a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure from adversely affecting the antenna design), and wherein a placement of the electronics housing is selected to minimize cross-coupling between the antenna and electronic components in the electronics housing (Fig. 11B, wireless charging module 30 with plate 65 forming a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0061-0062, etc. which disclose plate 65 being constructed of conductive material to thereby form a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure from adversely affecting the antenna design. That is, Seyerle’s placement of the electronics within the housing, read on by the conductive partial Faraday cage with shielding structure in the form of plate 65, reduces electromagnetic interaction with the antenna reflects a selection of placement that minimizes cross-coupling between the antenna and those electronic components, read on by driver 33. Furthermore, placement relative to an antenna to reduce cross-coupling is commonly known in the art, as such placement yields predictable results as moving electronics farther away, or placing them within shielding, predictably reduces cross-coupling. Furthermore, the claim does not recite a specific geometry, distance, configuration, or threshold, but merely recites the desired outcome/intended use, i.e., a minimization of cross-coupling). While Seyerle discloses an antenna, Seyerle fails to teach the antenna comprising a continuous conductor with no breaks or radio frequency discontinuities.
However, Yankowitz discloses an antenna comprising a continuous conductor with no breaks or radio frequency discontinuities (see, at least, paragraph 0100 which discloses the production process to develop an antenna such that the continuous “conductor has no discontinuities…”). 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 antenna of Seyerle to be a continuous conductor with no breaks or radio frequency discontinuities, as taught within Yankowitz, to improve the performance of said continuous conductor, especially at radio frequencies (see paragraph 0100). While Modified Seyerle teaches the antenna comprising a continuous conductor as claimed, Modified Seyerle fails to teach wherein the continuous conductor has a thickness that is approximately equal to 10 micrometers or greater.
However, ‘050 discloses wherein the continuous conductor has a thickness that is approximately equal to 10 micrometers 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 realize the continuous conductor of Modified Seyerle as having an approximate thickness equal to 10 micrometers or greater, as taught within ‘050, to improve Q-factor and efficiency of the power transfer (see paragraph 0036). Furthermore, the examiner notes that selecting a given thickness for the continuous conductor, or the antenna in general, 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 Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Seyerle, in further view of Yankowitz, discloses wherein the antenna is a three-dimensional antenna (see, at least, paragraph 0100), 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 (‘050: 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 of 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.”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Mod4ified Seyerle, in further view of Seyerle, discloses wherein the electronics housing is placed physically distant from the antenna (Fig. 11B, wireless charging module 30 with plate 65 forming a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure for housing driver module 33 comprising driver electronics positioned below coils 38 and their related discussion; said electronics housing is physically spaced apart from coils 38 by plate 65 as shown).
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Mod4ified Seyerle, in further view of Seyerle, discloses wherein the electronics housing is disposed in an area such that intervening structures between the electronics housing and the antenna shield a magnetic field of the antenna from coupling to the electronic components (Fig. 11B, wireless charging module 30 with plate 65 forming a conductive partial Faraday cage enclosure for housing driver module 33 comprising driver electronics positioned below coils 38 and their related discussion; said electronics housing is physically spaced apart from coils 38 by the intervening structures, read on by plate 65 as shown).
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 4. While Modified Seyerle teaches the antenna is disposed within the vehicle console and positioned away from the electronics housing, Modified Seyerle fails to teach the antenna is disposed within the vehicle console at least 3 inches from the electronics housing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the components at least 3 inches from one another, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, selecting a given distance between components would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Seyerle, in further view of Seyerle, discloses wherein the antenna is configured to transmit a wireless charging signal to one or more electronic devices placed in or around at least one of a cupholder of the vehicle console or a package tray area of the vehicle console (Figs. 1 and 11B, charging coil(s) 38 transmitting a wireless charging signal to rechargeable electronic device placed around the vehicle console assembly 10 as shown and discussed; see, at least, paragraphs 0026-0028, 0033-0041, 0062, etc.).
Regarding Claim 18:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Seyerle, in further view of Yankowitz, discloses wherein the wireless charging system is configured to simultaneously charge multiple electronic devices located near the vehicle console in multiple orientations and positions relative to the vehicle console (see, at least, paragraphs 0038, 0047, etc. which disclose simultaneously charging multiple receiver devices. Furthermore, recitations with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyerle et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0038279) in view of Yankowitz (2018/0294677) in further view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050; hereinafter ‘050) and in further view of Kesler et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0184338).
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While Modified Seyerle discloses wherein the continuous conductor of the antenna is integrated into a vehicle console as addressed above, Modified Seyerle 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 wherein the continuous conductor of the antenna is electrodeposited directly onto a mechanical part of the vehicle console (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 Seyerle 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 Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While Modified Seyerle teaches the antenna is disposed within the vehicle console as addressed above, Modified Seyerle 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 Seyerle to 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyerle et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0038279) in view of Yankowitz (2018/0294677) in further view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050; hereinafter ‘050) and in further view of Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0111154).
Regarding Claim 17:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. While Modified Seyerle discloses an antenna comprising a surface spiral coil, Modified Seyerle fails teach wherein the antenna comprises a surface spiral coil having an intrinsic quality factor greater than 200.
However, Roy et al. discloses wherein the antenna comprises a surface spiral coil having an intrinsic quality factor greater than 200 (see, at least, paragraph 0135 which discloses it is known for a source to have an intrinsic quality factor of at least 200). 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 Modified Seyerle as having an intrinsic quality factor greater than 200, as taught within Roy, to maximize efficiency and selectivity at its resonant frequency. Furthermore, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. That is, selecting a given quality factor for an antenna would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyerle et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0038279) in view of Yankowitz (2018/0294677) in further view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050; hereinafter ‘050) and in further view of Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057).
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Seyerle fails to teach wherein the antenna is oriented to focus a magnetic field of the antenna toward a cupholder region of the vehicle console.
However, Kirby et al. discloses wherein the antenna is oriented to focus a magnetic field of the antenna toward a cupholder region of the vehicle console (Fig. 26, cup-holders 1030 and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0180-0181, etc. which disclose utilizing cup-holders as areas for providing wireless power, as said locations are considered “natural locations where many drivers already place their portable electronic equipment while driving…. allows consumers to charge their equipment in a natural, convenient manner.”). 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 Seyerle to focus a magnetic field of an antenna toward a cupholder region, as taught within Kirby, as said location is commonly used for placement of a rechargeable electronic device during vehicle operation, thereby providing wireless charging capabilities to devices positioned within such a location in a natural, convenient manner (paragraph 0180).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyerle et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2013/0038279) in view of Yankowitz (2018/0294677) in further view of Yankowitz (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0262050; hereinafter ‘050) in further view of Kirby et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0019057) and in further view of Mayo et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0170794).
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Seyerle teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Modified Seyerle fails to teach wherein the wireless charging system is configured to provide power to an electronic device located in a cupholder of the vehicle console.
However, Kirby et al. discloses wherein the wireless charging system is configured to provide power to an electronic device located in a cupholder of the vehicle console (Fig. 26, cup-holders 1030 and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0180-0181, etc. which disclose utilizing cup-holders as areas for providing wireless power, as said locations are considered “natural locations where many drivers already place their portable electronic equipment while driving…. allows consumers to charge their equipment in a natural, convenient manner.”). 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 Seyerle to provide power to an electronic device located in a cupholder of the vehicle console, as taught within Kirby, as said location is commonly used for placement of a rechargeable electronic device during vehicle operation, thereby providing wireless charging capabilities to devices positioned within such a location in a natural, convenient manner (paragraph 0180). Furthermore, while Modified Seyerle teaches providing power output such as 2.5 Watts, Modified Seyerle fails to teach to provide at least 10 Watts of power.
However, Mayo et al. discloses provide at least 10 Watts of power to an electronic device (see, at least, paragraph 0091 which discloses power provided may be 5 Watts to 40 Watts of power dependent upon the requirements of a specific electronic device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize a wireless charging system capable of providing at least 10 Watts of power to an electronic device, as taught within Mayo, in order to provide a sufficient level for charging or power an electronic device, dependent upon the needs or requirements of said device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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: while the prior art of record discloses the utilization of conductive structures, as well as a wireless charging system being integrated into a vehicle console, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, “the conductive structures comprises an iron cast portion of the vehicle console” as claimed.
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 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
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights