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 .
Claim Status
Claims 13-23 are pending. Claims 1-12 were previously canceled. Claims 13-14, 16-17, and 19-21 are amended. Claims 15, 18, and 22-23 are previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments on pages 8-9 of the remarks that primary reference BAARMAN does not disclose the recitation “two secondary coils…interspiraled between turns of the multiturn primary coil” as recited in independent claim 13, Applicant has not convincingly argued against the interpretation of BAARMAN taken in the rejection, i.e., that coils 610 and 612 are each spiral shaped and are located between the turns of the primary coil 614, and are therefore “interspiraled between the turns of the multiturn primary coil” within the broadest reasonable interpretation. In particular, the claim does not require the two secondary coils to be “interspiraled within essentially the same area and dimensions”, and claim 13 would not preclude different coil sizes.
In response to arguments on page 8-9 of the remarks that BAARMAN does not disclose the amended recitation of individually connecting and disconnecting the coils, “thus adjusting the impedance of the antenna”, it is submitted that BAARMAN discloses each of the coils as having different characteristics (¶ 0046), wherein the selection between the different coils would inherently result in “adjusting the impedance of the antenna” as amended and within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim 13 does not recite “impedance matching or sensing the resonance”, and BAARMAN is not relied upon to teach said features. It appears Applicant may be referring to dependent claim 18, which relies upon secondary reference TEGGATZ to teach said features.
In response to arguments on page 9 of the remarks regarding claim 17, secondary reference TEGGATZ is not relied upon to teach “interspiraled secondary antennas”. For claim 17, while BAARMAN discloses a multiturn coil antenna, BAARMAN does not disclose a first multiturn antenna connected to a power supply and a second multiturn antenna connected to a load or a battery. TEGGATZ is relied upon to teach said features, and one of ordinary skill would recognize the multiturn antenna of BAARMAN could be utilized both as the claimed first multiturn antenna connected to a power supply and second multiturn antenna connected to a load or a battery. It is therefore maintained that BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ teaches the wireless power transfer system as applied to claim 17.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for containing “unlabeled generic box elements” (see 8, 23, 24, Fig. 2; 23, 24, Fig. 3; 17, 18, Fig. 4; 17, 18, Fig. 5; 17, 18, Fig. 6). Correction is required in accordance with 37 CFR 1.83 as stated below.
Further, 37 CFR 1.83 – Content of Drawing:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013]
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 8 and 24 as shown in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, lines 2-3, “the antenna configuration” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 3, “the highest transfer efficiency” lacks antecedent basis.
The above mentioned claim objections are not a complete and thorough listing. Applicant is required to revise all of the claims completely, and not just correct the language mentioned. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BAARMAN (US Pub. No 2009/0230777; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 13, BAARMAN discloses a multiturn coil antenna (222, Fig. 2; 610, 612, 614, Fig. 15; ¶ 0046: a primary coil assembly 222 with multiple coils. The coil selector circuit 220 is capable of energizing one or more of the multiple coils of the coil assembly 222… the primary coil assembly 222 includes three coils: a low power coil, a medium power coil and a high power coil…the number of turns, size, length, gauge, shape and configuration of each coil may vary) for transmitting or receiving wireless power (¶ 0003, 0026) in a wireless power transfer system (¶ 0026: the inductive power supply system of the present invention depicted in FIG. 1 and designated 100), the coil antenna including a plane multiturn spiral shaped primary conductor coil (614, Fig. 6; ¶ 0031: the coils 512, 514, 516 are arranged in a planar, concentric configuration under surface 506) and at least two secondary conductor coils positioned in the plane defined by the primary coil and interspiraled between the turns of the multiturn primary coil (610, 612, Fig. 6; coils 610 and 612 are each spiral shaped and are located between the turns of the primary coil 614, and are therefore “interspiraled between the turns of the multiturn primary coil” within the broadest reasonable interpretation) on an insulating material (¶ 0046: the primary coil assembly 222 may be implemented as multiple printed circuit board coils), each of the secondary coils having different diameters and lengths providing different inductance and are shorter than the primary coil (as shown in Fig. 15), wherein each secondary coils is connected to a switch (¶ 0047: Switches 820, 822, 824, 826, 828, 830 control which coil 832, 834, 836 receives power and therefore, which coil or coils are energized. In the current embodiment, the controller 302 activates one pair of switches 820-822, 824-826, 828-830 at a time. That is, the coils are activated in a mutually exclusive fashion. However, in alternative embodiments, multiple coils may be activated simultaneously depending on the application) configured to be controlled by a tuning controller (202, Fig. 2; ¶ 0046: the controller 202 instructs the coil selector circuit 220 on which coil to energize) for individually connecting and disconnecting the coil (¶ 0046-0047: see above) to a battery for receiving said power or to a power supply (¶ 0040: a power supply is implied in order to provide the alternating current for wireless power transfer), thus adjusting the impedance of the antenna (¶ 0046: the number of turns, size, length, gauge, shape and configuration of each coil may vary. In one embodiment, the low power coil has approximately 10 strands of LITZ wire, the medium power coil has approximately 50 strands of LITZ wire and the high power coil has approximately 138 strands of LITZ wire. In one embodiment, the sole difference between the low, medium, and high power coils are the respective gauges of the coil; the selection of the different coils in the antenna, wherein each coil may have a different gauge, number of strands, and physical configuration, directly alters its electrical resistance, inductance, and capacitance, i.e., the impedance).
Regarding claim 14, BAARMAN discloses each of the secondary coils extend one turn around a common coil center (¶ 0031; as shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 15, BAARMAN discloses the primary coil is at each end connected to an impedance, thus providing a resonator (¶ 0006, 0040, 0047).
Regarding claim 16, BAARMAN discloses two or more of the secondary coils can be connected in parallel (¶ 0041, 0076-0077).
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.
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) 17-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAARMAN (US Pub No. 2009/0230777) as applied to claims 13-16 above, and further in view of TEGGATZ (US Pub No. 2012/0139358; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 17, BAARMAN discloses a wireless power transfer system comprising two multiturn coil antennas, the first of said multiturn coil antennas being connected to a power supply (222, Fig. 2; 610, 612, 614, Fig. 15) and the second of said multiturn coil antennas being connected to drive a load or a battery to be charged with said power (509, Fig. 5; ¶ 0030-0033).
BAARMAN fails to disclose the two coil antennas according to claim 13.
However, one of ordinary skill would recognize the selectable coil antenna arrangement of BAARMAN is capable of being implemented in a device with a battery to be charged. For example, TEGGATZ discloses two coil antennas connected with switches configured to be controlled by a tuning controller (¶ 0020: Each of the coils is preferably connected with additional circuitry designed for particular functionality. For example, the primary coil may be associated with data signal transmitting circuitry, and the secondary coil may be associated with corresponding data receiving circuitry... the primary coil may reside within a battery charger or power inverter apparatus, and the secondary coil may reside in communication, computer, battery, imaging, or other portable apparatus, to cite a few examples. The respective coils are positioned within their respective apparatus such that, in operation, they may be placed in physical proximity for inductive coupling such that the coils are in communication with one another for the exchange data, and in some cases power; ¶ 0021: One or both sides (primary and secondary) of systems constructed in accordance with the invention can be built with multiple selectable coils; ¶ 0023: primary coil(s) 206 have one or more selectable tap points 210 activated by a switch 212 such that the effective size, and thus the frequency and resonance quality, or Q, of the primary coil(s) 206 can be changed dynamically. By manipulating the switch(es), e.g., 212 and changing the tap point 210, the radius of the coil 206 is changed based on a sense of the data integrity, coupling coefficient, or other system parameter detected by the primary side driver circuitry 208. This system 200 may be implemented using multiple coils 206 having one or more alternative tap points 210 such that various combinations may be selected dynamically according to operational requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the two coil antennas of TEGGATZ into the wireless power transfer system of BAARMAN to produce an expected result of a wireless power transfer system with two coil antennas as recited. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve power transfer by allowing both the transmitter and receiver coils to be adjustable.
Regarding claim 18, BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ teaches the wireless power transfer system as applied to claim 17, but BAARMAN fails to disclose said at least one tuning controller includes a sensing circuit for sensing resonance quality at each of said coil antennas and switching between the secondary antennas until a best matched impedance is achieved.
TEGGATZ further discloses said at least one tuning controller includes a sensing circuit for sensing resonance quality at each of said coil antennas and switching between the secondary antennas until a best matched impedance is achieved (¶ 0022-0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the sensing circuit of TEGGATZ into the wireless power transfer system of BAARMAN to produce an expected result of a wireless power transfer system including a sensing circuit. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve power transfer efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ teaches the first and second of the multiturn coil antennas include a receiver and a transmitter antenna, and the tuning controller of the receiver and transmitter antenna is configured to choose the secondary coil providing the highest power reception (TEGGATZ, ¶ 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 20, BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ teaches the wireless power transfer system as applied to claim 18, but BAARMAN fails to disclose the first and second of the multiturn coil antennas include a receiver and a transmitter antenna, and the transmitter and receiver is provided with a wireless communication means so as to choose the antenna configuration at both the transmitter and receiver providing the highest transfer efficiency.
TEGGATZ further discloses the first and second of the multiturn coil antennas include a receiver and a transmitter antenna, and the transmitter and receiver is provided with a wireless communication means so as to choose the antenna configuration at both the transmitter and receiver providing the highest transfer efficiency (¶ 0002, 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the wireless communication means to choose the antenna configuration of TEGGATZ into the wireless power transfer system of BAARMAN to produce an expected result of a wireless power transfer system including a wireless communication means to choose the antenna configuration. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure data integrity of communicated data.
Regarding claim 23, BAARMAN discloses a first of said antennas are connected to a power supply located in a stationary installation and the second of said antennas is located in a mobile electronic device and being connected to a chargeable battery in the device, the installation including a surface for placing the device in a predetermined position relative to the first antenna (¶ 0030-0031).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAARMAN in view of TEGGATZ as applied to claims 17-20 and 23 above, and further in view of PAPARO (US Pub. No 2011/0204845; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 21, BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ teaches the wireless power transfer system as applied to claim 17, but fails to disclose the first of said antennas are connected to a power supply located in a stationary installation at a ground level and the second of said antennas is located in a moving vehicle, such as a car, and connected to a chargeable battery, the second antenna being positioned in the vehicle at a predetermined height above the ground level.
PAPARO discloses the first of said antennas are connected to a power supply located in a stationary installation at a ground level and the second of said antennas is located in a moving vehicle, such as a car, and connected to a chargeable battery, the second antenna being positioned in the vehicle at a predetermined height above the ground level (¶ 0053-0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the stationary installation and moving vehicle of PAPARO into the wireless power transfer system of BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ to produce an expected result of a wireless power transfer system comprising a stationary installation and a moving vehicle. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a suitable application for the wireless power transfer system.
Regarding claim 22, BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ teaches the wireless power transfer system as applied to claim 17, but fails to disclose a first of said antennas are connected to a power supply located in a stationary submarine installation and the second of said antennas is located in an electrically operated submarine vessel and connected to a chargeable battery in the vessel, the vessel being configured to move into a position at a predetermined position relative to the first antenna.
PAPARO discloses a first of said antennas are connected to a power supply located in a stationary submarine installation and the second of said antennas is located in an electrically operated submarine vessel and connected to a chargeable battery in the vessel, the vessel being configured to move into a position at a predetermined position relative to the first antenna (¶ 0053-0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the stationary submarine installation and submarine vessel of PAPARO into the wireless power transfer system of BAARMAN as modified by TEGGATZ to produce an expected result of a wireless power transfer system comprising a stationary submarine installation and a submarine vessel. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a suitable application of the wireless power transfer system.
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 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 7/16/2026
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights