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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: WIRELESS CHARGING APPARATUS FOR TRANSPORTATION MEANS AND MAGNETIC COMPOSITE HAVING A LOW MOISTURE ABSORPTION RATE
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied, e.g., “according to an embodiment”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 3, 5-6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEREZ ROMERO (US PG Pub 2019/0308216; hereinafter referred to as ROMERO) in view of ARAKI (JP2005209947A; cited on IDS; English Machine translation is included with office action).
Regarding claim 1, ROMERO discloses a wireless charging device (11, Fig. 1) for a transportation means (9, Fig. 1; ¶ 0068: the vehicle 9 comprises a secondary unit receiving device 11 of an IPT system), which comprises a coil unit (35, Fig. 5) comprising a conductive wire (¶ 0013: In a mobile device for inductive power transfer, IPT, such as a receiver or in a charging pad with the primary coil of an IPT system; ¶ 0083: a magnetic field or an electromagnetic field can be received by the electric lines 35 embedded in the first layer 39. The field induces an electric voltage in the electric lines 35 during operation); and a magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit (41, Fig. 5; ¶ 0083: the second layer 41 made of the magnetic constituent material is the upper layer of the unit. Therefore, a magnetic field or an electromagnetic field can be received by the electric lines 35 embedded in the first layer 39. The field induces an electric voltage in the electric lines 35 during operation. Magnetic field lines (not shown) are redirected by the magnetic and/or magnetizable particles within the second layer 41).
ROMERO fails to disclose the magnetic unit has a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less.
However, ARAKI discloses the moisture absorption rate of a magnetic unit to be a result effective variable, and discloses it is favorable to have a low moisture absorption rate (¶ 0009: By using a resin powder with low moisture absorption, rusting of the magnetic powder is minimized even in high humidity environments, and deterioration of the magnetic properties of the plastic magnet (deterioration over time) can be prevented; ¶ 0030: plastic magnets were produced under similar conditions (the volume ratio of the magnetic powder to the resin powder was the same as above) using aromatic polyester powder with a water absorption rate of 0.01% (Example 5-2) and polyphenylene sulfide powder with a water absorption rate of 0.02% (Example 5-3) instead of polyamide 12 powder as the resin; ¶ 0034: by using a resin powder with low moisture absorption as the raw material, oxidation of the magnetic powder due to moisture is suppressed, and a plastic magnet with more stable and high magnetic properties can be obtained). One of ordinary skill would understand providing the magnetic unit with a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less would not produce new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic unit with the recited moisture absorption rate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit has a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less in order to minimize rusting even in high humidity environments and prevent deterioration of the magnetic properties over time (ARAKI, ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 3, ROMERO discloses the magnetic unit comprises a magnetic composite comprising a matrix resin; and a plurality of magnetic particles disposed in the matrix resin (¶ 0013, 0015, 0024, 0027, 0056).
Regarding claim 5, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 3, but fails to teach the matrix resin is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyimide resin, a polyamide resin, a polyamide-imide resin, a polycarbonate resin, an acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene (ABS) resin, a polypropylene resin, a polyethylene resin, a polystyrene resin, a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin, a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin, an acrylic resin, a polyurethane resin, a polyester resin, an isocyanate resin, and an epoxy resin.
ARAKI further teaches the matrix resin is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyimide resin, a polyamide resin, a polyamide-imide resin, a polycarbonate resin, an acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene (ABS) resin, a polypropylene resin, a polyethylene resin, a polystyrene resin, a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) resin, a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin, an acrylic resin, a polyurethane resin, a polyester resin, an isocyanate resin, and an epoxy resin (¶ 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the matrix resin material as recited in order to provide a low moisture absorption rate (ARAKI, ¶ 0030, 0034).
Regarding claim 6, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 3, but fails to teach the magnetic unit comprises the magnetic particles in an amount of 70% by weight to 95% by weight based on the total weight of the magnetic composite and in an amount of 35% by volume to 65% by volume based on the total volume of the magnetic composite.
ARAKI further discloses the magnetic unit comprises the magnetic particles in an amount of 70% by weight to 95% by weight based on the total weight of the magnetic composite and in an amount of 35% by volume to 65% by volume based on the total volume of the magnetic composite (¶ 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit comprises the magnetic particles as recited in order to provide a low moisture absorption rate (ARAKI, ¶ 0030, 0034).
Regarding claim 11, ROMERO discloses a transportation means (9, Fig. 1), which comprises a power storage device (¶ 0013: implementing an inductive charging system into a road or parking lot; implementing the system of ROMERO in a parking lot implies the transportation means has a power storage device which would store the power when the transportation means is parked and use the power for subsequent travel); and a wireless charging device (11, Fig. 1) for receiving wireless power from the outside to supply it to the power storage device (¶ 0068: the vehicle 9 comprises a secondary unit receiving device 11 of an IPT system), wherein the wireless charging device comprises a coil unit (35, Fig. 5) comprising a conductive wire (¶ 0013: In a mobile device for inductive power transfer, IPT, such as a receiver or in a charging pad with the primary coil of an IPT system; ¶ 0083: a magnetic field or an electromagnetic field can be received by the electric lines 35 embedded in the first layer 39. The field induces an electric voltage in the electric lines 35 during operation); and a magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit (41, Fig. 5; ¶ 0083: the second layer 41 made of the magnetic constituent material is the upper layer of the unit. Therefore, a magnetic field or an electromagnetic field can be received by the electric lines 35 embedded in the first layer 39. The field induces an electric voltage in the electric lines 35 during operation. Magnetic field lines (not shown) are redirected by the magnetic and/or magnetizable particles within the second layer 41).
ROMERO fails to disclose the magnetic unit has a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less.
However, ARAKI discloses the moisture absorption rate of a magnetic unit to be a result effective variable, and discloses it is favorable to have a low moisture absorption rate (¶ 0009: By using a resin powder with low moisture absorption, rusting of the magnetic powder is minimized even in high humidity environments, and deterioration of the magnetic properties of the plastic magnet (deterioration over time) can be prevented; ¶ 0030: plastic magnets were produced under similar conditions (the volume ratio of the magnetic powder to the resin powder was the same as above) using aromatic polyester powder with a water absorption rate of 0.01% (Example 5-2) and polyphenylene sulfide powder with a water absorption rate of 0.02% (Example 5-3) instead of polyamide 12 powder as the resin; ¶ 0034: by using a resin powder with low moisture absorption as the raw material, oxidation of the magnetic powder due to moisture is suppressed, and a plastic magnet with more stable and high magnetic properties can be obtained). One of ordinary skill would understand providing the magnetic unit with a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less would not produce new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic unit with the recited moisture absorption rate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit has a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less in order to minimize rusting even in high humidity environments and prevent deterioration of the magnetic properties over time (ARAKI, ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 12, ROMERO discloses a magnetic composite (41, Fig. 5; ¶ 0083: second layer 41 made of the magnetic constituent material is the upper layer of the unit) used in a wireless charging device (11, Fig. 1; ¶ 0068: vehicle 9 comprises a secondary unit receiving device 11 of an IPT system; ¶ 0083: secondary unit shown in FIG. 5 may comprise, for example, the secondary unit receiving device 11 shown in FIG. 1) of a transportation means (9, Fig. 1), which comprises a matrix resin; and a plurality of magnetic particles disposed in the matrix resin (¶ 0013: the magnetic and/or magnetizable particles are preferably dispersed within a synthetic resin; ¶ 0015: the constituent material with the magnetic and/or magnetizable particles can be also a constructional element of the primary or secondary unit; ¶ 0024: In the case of a polymeric resin as the constituent material, the magnetic and/or magnetizable particles do not replace a portion of the constituent material, but are rather mixed in as an additive; ¶ 0027: Resins as the constituent material likewise may be cast into a mold while at the same time or before the casting process the magnetic and/or magnetizable particles are dispersed within the resin. Preferably the resin is a synthetic resin such as a polymeric resin).
ROMERO fails to disclose the magnetic composite has a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less.
However, ARAKI discloses the moisture absorption rate of a magnetic unit to be a result effective variable, and discloses it is favorable to have a low moisture absorption rate (¶ 0009: By using a resin powder with low moisture absorption, rusting of the magnetic powder is minimized even in high humidity environments, and deterioration of the magnetic properties of the plastic magnet (deterioration over time) can be prevented; ¶ 0030: plastic magnets were produced under similar conditions (the volume ratio of the magnetic powder to the resin powder was the same as above) using aromatic polyester powder with a water absorption rate of 0.01% (Example 5-2) and polyphenylene sulfide powder with a water absorption rate of 0.02% (Example 5-3) instead of polyamide 12 powder as the resin; ¶ 0034: by using a resin powder with low moisture absorption as the raw material, oxidation of the magnetic powder due to moisture is suppressed, and a plastic magnet with more stable and high magnetic properties can be obtained). One of ordinary skill would understand providing the magnetic unit with a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less would not produce new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic unit with the recited moisture absorption rate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit has a moisture absorption rate of 0.5% by weight or less in order to minimize rusting even in high humidity environments and prevent deterioration of the magnetic properties over time (ARAKI, ¶ 0009).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO in view of ARAKI as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 11-12 above, and further in view of ONO (US PG Pub 2004/0094512).
Regarding claim 2, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the moisture absorption rate (SR) of the magnetic unit is represented by the following Equation (1): SR = [(B – A) / A] X 100 … (1) in the above equation, A is the weight (g) after the magnetic unit is dried, and B is the weight (g) after the magnetic unit is immersed in water at room temperature for 24 hours, and water on the surface is removed.
ONO discloses the moisture absorption rate (SR) of the magnetic unit is represented by the following Equation (1): SR = [(B – A) / A] X 100 … (1) in the above equation, A is the weight (g) after the magnetic unit is dried, and B is the weight (g) after the magnetic unit is immersed in water at room temperature for 24 hours, and water on the surface is removed (¶ 0132-0133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the moisture absorption rate (SR) of the magnetic unit is represented by the Equation as recited in order to predict and control the magnetic unit’s behavior, performance, and durability in various environments.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO in view of ARAKI as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 11-12 above, and further in view of MAEDA (US PG Pub 2008/0152897).
Regarding claim 4, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 3 but fails to disclose the magnetic unit further comprises a protective layer surrounding each of the magnetic particles.
MAEDA discloses the magnetic unit further comprises a protective layer surrounding each of the magnetic particles (¶ 0022-0024, 0048-0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit further comprises a protective layer surrounding each of the magnetic particles in order to reduce eddy currents flowing between particles (MAEDA, ¶ 0014, 0017).
Regarding claim 8, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI and MAEDA teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 4, but fails to teach the protective layer comprises at least one selected from a silicone-based resin and a fluorine-based resin.
MAEDA further discloses the protective layer comprises at least one selected from a silicone-based resin and a fluorine-based resin (¶ 0022-0024, 0048-0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit further comprises a protective layer selected from a silicone-based resin and a fluorine-based resin in order to reduce eddy currents flowing between particles (MAEADA, ¶ 0014, 0017).
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO in view of ARAKI as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 11-12 above, and further in view of HIRAKAWA (US PG Pub 2019/0348203).
Regarding claim 7, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 3, but fails to disclose the magnetic unit further comprises an outer layer surrounding the surface of the magnetic composite.
HIRAKAWA discloses the magnetic unit further comprises an outer layer surrounding the surface of the magnetic composite (¶ 0069-0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit further comprises an outer layer surrounding the surface of the magnetic composite in order to provide flexible insulation (HIRAKAWA, ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 13, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI and HIRAKAWA teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 7, but fails to teach the outer layer comprises at least one selected from a silicone-based resin and a fluorine-based resin.
HIRAKAWA further discloses the outer layer comprises at least one selected from a silicone-based resin and a fluorine-based resin (¶ 0069-0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the magnetic unit further comprises an outer layer selected from a silicone-based resin and a fluorine-based resin in order to provide flexible insulation (HIRAKAWA, ¶ 0070).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO in view of ARAKI as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 11-12 above, and further in view of HIRAKAWA (US PG Pub 2019/0348203) and ARAKAWA (US PG Pub 2002/0044356).
Regarding claim 9, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the surface of the magnetic unit has a contact angle of 80° or more for water.
However, it is first noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the recited contact angle of 80° or more (see page 14, lines 11-14 of the specification as originally filed), and it is submitted that providing the contact angle of 80° or more would not provide new or unexpected results, and constitutes and obvious modification. For example, HIRAKAWA discloses the magnetic unit further comprises an outer layer surrounding the surface of the magnetic composite, said outer layer of a silicone-based resin (¶ 0069-0070). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize silicone-based resins as typically being hydrophobic, i.e., as having a water contact angle of 80° or more. ARAKAWA is relied upon to show silicone-based resin having a water contact angle of 80° or more (¶ 0094).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the surface of the magnetic unit has a contact angle of 80° or more for water in order to provide antifouling properties (ARAKAWA, ¶ 0094).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROMERO in view of ARAKI as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 11-12 above, and further in view of HATANAKA (US PG Pub 2014/0002228).
Regarding claim 10, ROMERO as modified by ARAKI teaches the wireless charging device for a transportation means as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the magnetic unit satisfies the following Relationship (2): 6 ≤ (100-P) / M … (2) in the above relationship, M is the moisture absorption rate (% by weight) when the magnetic unit is immersed in water for 24 hours at room temperature, P is the percentage (%) of magnetic permeability thereof at a frequency of 85 kHz when a magnetic permeability of 200 is 100%, and M and P in the above Relationship (2) are numerical values exclusive of units.
However, ARAKI further discloses the moisture absorption rate as a result effective variable (¶ 0009, 0030, 0034), and HATANAKA discloses magnetic permeability as a result effective variable (¶ 0018, 0020, 0073-0075). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the magnetic unit with a moisture absorption rate and magnetic permeability that satisfies equation (2) as recited, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the moisture absorption rate and magnetic permeability of the magnetic unit satisfying the Equation as recited in order to predict and control the magnetic unit’s behavior, performance, and durability in various environments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
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 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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 11/17/2025
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859