DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “and a second inductance in a state where only the second magnetic unit remains and a first inductance in a state where only the first magnetic unit remains are different from each other”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as indicating the first and second magnetic units have different inductances, given that the limitation appears to be hypothesizing two different states where one magnetic unit doesn’t exist and the other does and indicating that these states have different inductances.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites “magnetic permeability loss”. This is not a known term of the art and it is unclear what value exactly this is referring to or how it is measured. The specification fails to clarify this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. US PGPUB 2017/0345555.
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a wireless charging device [figs. 1-3 & 7-8], which comprises a coil unit [fig. 7, coil unit 120]; and
a magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit [figs. 7-8; magnetic unit 500 is “laminated on the wireless power reception coil 120” (par. 69); pars. 69-70 & 74-75, the “complex unit 500” comprises a shielding unit of “magnetic sheets” (par. 80)],
wherein the magnetic unit comprises a first magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit and a second magnetic unit disposed adjacent to the first magnetic unit and having a magnetic permeability different from that of the first magnetic unit [par. 69, 74-75 & 92; fig. 8, two magnetic units 22 and 24 with different magnetic permeabilities are disposed on the coil unit 120; the sheets 22 and 24 are separated only by an adhesive layer 630, thus Examiner is interpreting them as “adjacent”; par. 76].
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses which further comprises a shield unit disposed on the magnetic unit, wherein the second magnetic unit is disposed between the shield unit and the first magnetic unit, and the second magnetic unit is thermally connected to, and electrically insulated from, the shield unit [fig. 8; shield unit 700 above the second magnetic unit 22 and separated by adhesive layer 640 which allows for thermal connection and electrical insulation (natural properties of an adhesive), both 700 and 22 are above 24, thus 22 is in between 700 and 24; pars. 89-91].
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses wherein the first magnetic unit comprises a polymer-type magnetic block (PMB) comprising a binder resin and a magnetic powder dispersed in the binder resin [par. 27; sheet 24 (the claimed first magnetic unit) can be comprised of a magnetic powder and a resin], and the second magnetic unit comprises a ferrite-based magnetic material, a nanocrystalline magnetic material, or a combination thereof [par. 25.; a nanocrystalline alloy (which is magnetic material, par. 25)].
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses a wireless charging device [figs. 1-3 & 7-8], which comprises a coil unit [fig. 7, coil unit 120]; and
a magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit [figs. 7-8; magnetic unit 500 is “laminated on the wireless power reception coil 120” (par. 69); pars. 69-70 & 74-75, the “complex unit 500” comprises a shielding unit of “magnetic sheets” (par. 80)],
wherein the magnetic unit comprises a first magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit; and a second magnetic unit disposed adjacent to the first magnetic unit [par. 69, 74-75 & 92; fig. 8, two magnetic units 22 and 24 with different magnetic permeabilities are disposed on the coil unit 120; the sheets 22 and 24 are separated only by an adhesive layer 630, thus Examiner is interpreting them as “adjacent”; par. 76], and a second inductance in a state where only the second magnetic unit remains and a first inductance in a state where only the first magnetic unit remains are different from each other [magnetic permeability is directly proportional to inductance, thus two magnetic units with different permeabilities, as disclosed by Jang, would also have different inductances; see 112(b) rejection above].
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses a wireless charging device [figs. 1-3 & 7-8], which comprises a coil unit [fig. 7, coil unit 120]; and
a magnetic unit disposed on the coil unit [figs. 7-8; magnetic unit 500 is “laminated on the wireless power reception coil 120” (par. 69); pars. 69-70 & 74-75, the “complex unit 500” comprises a shielding unit of “magnetic sheets” (par. 80)],
wherein the magnetic unit comprises a first magnetic unit and a second magnetic unit [par. 69, 74-75 & 92; fig. 8, two magnetic units 22 and 24], the second magnetic unit is located at the center of the magnetic unit, the entire surface or a circumferential surface of the second magnetic unit is surrounded by the first magnetic unit, and the magnetic permeability of the second magnetic unit is higher than the magnetic permeability of the first magnetic unit [par. 69, 74-75 & 92; fig. 8, two magnetic units 22 and 24 with different magnetic permeabilities are disposed on the coil unit 120, the magnetic units 22 and 24 coincide exactly (see also fig. 7) thus are also centered on each other and thus one is “at the center” of the other, and one has a higher permeability than the other].
Regarding claim 15, Jang discloses a transportation means [par. 1, vehicle, which comprises the wireless charging device of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. US PGPUB 2017/0345555.
Regarding claim 4, Jang discloses wherein the magnetic permeability of the second magnetic unit is greater than the magnetic permeability of the first magnetic unit [fig. 8; pars. 80-81; the second magnetic unit 22, which is the unit adjacent to the first magnetic unit (not “on” the coil unit), has a permeability greater than the first magnetic unit 24 (the magnetic unit “on” the coil unit)], and the thickness of a region corresponding to the coil unit in the first magnetic unit is greater than the thickness of a region corresponding to the coil unit in the second magnetic unit [par. 29, 81 & 92; the shielding sheet 22 corresponding to the second magnetic unit can have a thickness of 20 µm to 300 µm and the sheet 24 corresponding to the first magnetic unit can have a thickness of 30 µm to 500 µm (see 103 analysis below); figs. 7-8, the regions of the coil unit correspond to the regions of the magnetic units].
As indicated above, Jang discloses overlapping ranges where the minimum and maximum of the range for the first magnetic unit (24) is thicker than the second magnetic unit, but doesn’t explicitly indicate that in all cases the value selected from each range meets this criteria. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang to specify that the first magnetic unit is thicker than the second magnetic unit for the purpose of allowing the use of different ferrite materials, as taught by Jang (par. 79) and since it has been held that a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-3 and 13-14 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.
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 2, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the composite magnetic permeability (CP) represented by the following Equation 1 in the magnetic unit is 101 to 290” and wherein “in Equation 1, P1 is the magnetic permeability of the first magnetic unit, P2 is the magnetic permeability of the second magnetic unit, T1 is the thickness of a region in the first magnetic unit corresponding to the coil unit, T2 is the thickness of a region in the second magnetic unit corresponding to the coil unit, a is 1 when P1 is 10 to 1,000; 10 when P1 is greater than 1,000 to 8,000; or 20 when P1 is greater than 8,000 to 30,000, and b is 1 when P2 is 10 to 1,000; 10 when P12 is greater than 1,000 to 8,000; or 20 when P2 is greater than 8,000 to 30,000” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 2 and claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 3, being dependent on claim 2, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 2.
With respect to claim 8, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the composite iron loss (Ci) of the magnetic unit according to the following Equation 2 is 1,200 W/m3or less” in combination with the claimed equation and wherein “in Equation 2, a is the iron loss per measurement unit of the second magnetic unit, c is the iron loss per measurement unit of the first magnetic unit, Lt is the inductance measured in a state in which the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit are installed, La is the second inductance, and Lc is the first inductance” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 1 and 7 from which it depends.
Claims 9-10, being dependent on claim 8, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 8.
With respect to claim 11, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “the first magnetic unit having a thickness of 2 mm to 12 mm and a volume of 100 cm3 to 1,500 cm3;the second magnetic unit having a thickness of 0.04 mm to 5 mm and a volume of 1 cm3 to 900 cm3;the first magnetic unit and the second magnetic unit having a thickness ratio of 1:0.01 to 0.6 and a volume ratio of 1:0.01 to 0.6; the first magnetic unit having a magnetic permeability of 5 to 500 and a magnetic permeability loss of 0 to 50 at 85 kHz; and the second magnetic unit having a magnetic permeability of 1,000 to 20,000 and a magnetic permeability loss of 0 to 500 at 85 kHz” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 1 and 7 from which it depends.
With respect to claim 13, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the first magnetic unit comprises a magnetic powder and a binder resin and has a magnetic permeability of 5 to 500 at 85 kHz, and the second magnetic unit comprises a ferrite-based magnetic material, a nanocrystalline magnetic material, or a combination thereof and has a magnetic permeability of greater than 500 to 150,000 at 85 kHz” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 12 from which it depends.
With respect to claim 14, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “the wireless charging device of claim 12, which satisfies at least one selected from the following characteristics: the maximum cross-sectional area of the second magnetic unit in a horizontal direction being 10% to 40% of the total cross-sectional area of the magnetic unit; the amount of heat generated by the second magnetic unit being higher than the amount of heat generated by the first magnetic unit when the coil unit receives wireless power from the outside; and when the magnetic unit transmits wireless power having a frequency of 85 kHz and an output of 6.6 kW to the coil unit for 15 minutes, and the heat generation temperature of the lower surface of the magnetic unit is Tis, and when the wireless power is transmitted for 30 minutes, and the heat generation temperature of the lower surface of the magnetic unit is T30, it being further increased from T15 to T30 by 30°C or less” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 12 from which it depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kurs et al. US PGPUB 2015/0302984 discloses a wireless charging system which uses magnetic units with different permeabilities [par. 104].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859