Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/930,745

WIRELESS CHARGE COIL

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 09, 2022
Examiner
DIAO, M BAYE
Art Unit
2859
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Haesung Ds Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

88%
Career Allow Rate
1246 granted / 1422 resolved
Without
With
+-2.2%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
41 pending
1463
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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 . Acknowledgement is made of application #17/930,745 filed on 09/09/2022 in which claims 1-12 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2022, 02/11/2024 and 05/14/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner and placed of record. Initialed copies are attached herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (Park) US 2019/0131057 A1 in view of Kishi et al., (Kishi) US 2018/0190435. Regarding claim 1: Park at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1,4-6A,6B:s A wireless charge coil(110) for wireless charging of a portable terminal(10)(see Fig. 1), the wireless charge coil(110) comprising: an installation member(120)(see Fig. 3, ¶[0079]); and a conducting wire((130)[Wingdings font/0xE0](140,150))(¶[0081]) portion arranged at the installation member(120), wherein the conducting wire portion comprises a conductor(150a)(made of copper (Cu); see ¶[0116]) and a magnetic material plating layer(150b)(made of nickel (Ni) -note Nickel is a magnetic material, see ¶[0116]) material; see Fig. 5) arranged on at least one surface of the conductor(120)(see ¶[0113]). Park discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of: and the magnetic material plating layer has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 8 µm. However Kishi discloses(¶[0130]) factual evidence of, the magnetic material plating layer(Nickel layer; Note- the nickel layer is not less than about 1 μm and not more than about 8 μm) has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 8 µm. Park and Kishi are magnetic materials analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the magnetic material plating layer to have a thickness of about 1 µm to about 8 µm as taught by Kishi, for the advantages of reducing or preventing erosion of the external electrode, as per the teachings of Kishi (¶[0131]). Accordingly claim 1 would have been obvious. Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Ishi discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Park further discloses, wherein the conductor(150) includes a lead frame material (1431)(see Fig. 14)(see ¶[0178]-¶[0179]). Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Ishi discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Park further discloses, wherein the magnetic material plating layer(150b) is a permalloy plating layer(note-Nickel is a permalloy magnetic material). Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Ishi discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Park further discloses, wherein one surface(surface of 150a) of the conductor(150) is in contact with the installation member(120)(see Fig. 8), and the magnetic material plating layer(150b) is arranged on a remaining surface of the conductor(150), excluding the surface which is in contact with the installation member(see element 125 in Fig. 8 between the two surfaces). Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Ishi discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Park further discloses, wherein at least a part of the conductor(150) has a divided structure(150a and 150b)(see Fig. 8). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., (Park) US 2019/0131057 A1 in view of Kishi et al., (Kishi) US 2018/0190435 and in further view of Carson et al., (Carlson) USPAT 4,521,755 and Hancock US 2010/003017 A1. Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Ishi discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the limitations of: wherein, when a skin depth is δ, a width of the conductor is 1.5δ to 4δ, and the skin depth δ satisfies the following equation: δ=1/√(πfµσ) where f represents an applied frequency, µ represents a conductor permeability, and σ represents a conductivity. Carlson discloses and shows in Fig. 14 and (¶[0105],¶[0107), factual evidence of, wherein, when a skin depth is δ, a width of the conductor is 1δ to 4δ, and the skin depth δ satisfies the following equation: δ=1/√(πfµσ) Furthermore, Hancock teaches (page 26 and Equation 3)s that the percentage of power transferred is a function of material thickness of the conductor and the skin depth as shown in Equation 3 of Page 26 as follows: %P=(1- e - x / δ ) x 100 Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Carlson and Hancock in selecting, wherein, when a skin depth is δ, a width of the conductor is 1δ to 4δ, and the skin depth δ satisfies the following equation: δ=1/√(πfµσ), as recited so as to minimize transmission loss, as per the teachings of Carlson (col. 6, lines 46-48) and for further advantages of maximizing the percentage of power transferred since a 1.5δ to 4δ result in a 77.6% to 98.2% of the power will be transported and transferred, as per the teachings of Hancock (¶[0107]). Accordingly claim 5 would have been obvious. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-12 are allowed over the current prior art of record. Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in the claimed combination, a wireless charge coil for wireless charging of a portable terminal, the wireless charge coil having an overall winding shape of a donut, an internal diameter greater than or equal to about 25 mm and an external diameter less than or equal to about 50 mm, and comprising: an installation member; and a conducting wire portion arranged at the installation member, wherein the conducting wire portion comprises a conductor and a magnetic material plating layer arranged on at least one surface of the conductor, and wherein the conductor has a thickness of about 50 µm to about 300 µm, and the magnetic material plating layer has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 8 µm. Claims 8-12 depend directly from claim 7 and thus is also allowed for the same reasons. Citation of Prior art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For a list of cited prior art documents not relied upon but disclosing related prior art, see form PTO 892. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9:00AM-6:30PM. 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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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. M'BAYE DIAO Primary Examiner Art Unit 2859 /M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 May 19, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 09, 2022
Application Filed
May 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12594854
BATTERY CONTROL SYSTEM, BATTERY CONTROL METHOD AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589665
PEER-TO-PEER DC FAST CHARGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592426
COLD WEATHER SMART BATTERY HEATING AND CHARGING STRATEGY UTILIZING MULTI-STAGE BATTERY HEATING CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583353
SERVER AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584966
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANAGING BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (-2.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1422 resolved cases by this examiner