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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transportation means” in claim 9. Examiner notes that no function is attached to the transportation means, and it is indicated as comprising “a wireless charging device” which is limited by enough structure to perform the functions recited (“a coil unit” and a “cooling unit” with an “inner space through which cooling water is circulated”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The metes and bounds of this claim are unclear because it not clear whether a prior art reference would meet the limitations by merely having “a heat generation temperature reduction rate of 40% or more”, or having “a heat generation temperature reduction rate of 40% or more and demonstrating the calculation by the same equation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring having “a heat generation temperature reduction rate of 40% or more and demonstrating the calculation by the same equation.
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.
Claims 1-3 & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle US PGPUB 2020/0398687 in view of Ansari et al. US PGPUB 2017/0338023.
Regarding claim 1, Laemmle discloses a wireless charging device [fig. 1], which comprises
a coil unit [fig. 1, coil unit 2; par. 28];
a cooling unit disposed on the coil unit, comprising an inlet and an outlet, and having a sealed inner space through which cooling fluid is circulated [fig. 1, fluid pipe 5 (a cooling unit) is disclosed on and around the coil unit 2, and comprises an inlet 5a and an outlet 5b, with a sealed inner space in which the fluid is circulated; pars. 8 & 28-29];
a magnetic unit disposed in the inner space of the cooling unit [fig. 1, ferrite assembly 10 (ferrite is magnetic) is within 5; par. 31]; and
a fixing unit for fixing the magnetic unit [fig. 1, “retaining device 6”; par. 31], wherein the cooling water is supplied through the inlet, comes into thermal contact with the magnetic unit, and is discharged through the outlet [fig. 1; pars. 28-31].
Laemmle does not explicitly disclose the fluid is water.
However, Ansari discloses an electric vehicle charging device [abs.] with fluid cooling wherein the fluid is water [par. 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laemmle to further include the fluid is water, since water is a cheap, effective and known coolant, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Laemmle discloses wherein the fixing unit comprises a spacer, and the spacer separates the magnetic unit from the lower surface of the inner space of the cooling unit [fig. 1, retaining device 6 also acts as a spacer spacing 11 from the bottom of 5].
Regarding claim 3, Laemmle discloses wherein the fixing unit has a structure in which a part of the inner wall of the cooling unit protrudes and is integrally formed with the cooling unit, and the protruding structures of two or more fixing units are combined to form a groove in which the cooling unit is seated.
However, Ansari further discloses wherein the fixing unit has a structure in which a part of the inner wall of the cooling unit protrudes and is integrally formed with the cooling unit, and the protruding structures of two or more fixing units are combined to form a groove in which the cooling unit is seated [fig. 6A-6B; a housing 38 of the device fixes the magnetics assembly 22 and also has corners and protrusions in which the bottom wall 28 of the coolant assembly 20 sits; pars. 39, 47 & 52-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laemmle to further include wherein the fixing unit has a structure in which a part of the inner wall of the cooling unit protrudes and is integrally formed with the cooling unit, and the protruding structures of two or more fixing units are combined to form a groove in which the cooling unit is seated for the purpose of holding and supporting the bottom wall of the coolant assembly, as taught by Ansari (pars. 39, 47 & 52-54).
Regarding claim 7, Laemmle discloses wherein the magnetic unit is spaced apart from at least one inner wall of the cooling unit [fig. 1, each of the units of the magnetic unit are spaced apart from the inner walls of 5].
Laemmle does not explicitly disclose the spacing is by 1 mm or more.
The combination of Laemmle and Ansari does not explicitly disclose the spacing is by 1 mm or more.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the inductive charging arts to use spacing for magnetics units of 1 mm or more, for example in large units like those for vehicles or even larger machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Laemmle, Ansari and Yuasa to further include the spacing is 1 mm or more for the purpose of designing a large unit, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Laemmle discloses wherein the wireless charging device further comprises a shield unit [fig. 1, shielding plate 9; par. 30].
Laemmle does not explicitly disclose the shield unit is disposed on the magnetic unit in the cooling unit, and the cooling water supplied into the cooling unit comes into thermal contact with the shield unit.
However, Ansari further discloses the shield unit is disposed on the magnetic unit in the cooling unit, and the cooling water supplied into the cooling unit comes into thermal contact with the shield unit [par. 45; the top wall 26 of the coolant assembly can act as a shield, and is thus in thermal contact with the cooling water and is disposed on top of (above) the magnetics assembly 22; fig. 6a-6b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laemmle to further include the shield unit is disposed on the magnetic unit in the cooling unit, and the cooling water supplied into the cooling unit comes into thermal contact with the shield unit for the purpose of protecting the electronics assembly from the magnetic field of the magnetics assembly, while eliminating the need for a separate shield by using one of the walls of the coolant assembly, as taught by Ansari (pars. 6, 13 & 37).
Regarding claim 9, Laemmle discloses a transportation means [pars. 8-9 & 11; the inductive charging device and cooling assembly is attached to a vehicle for charging the vehicle battery], which comprises a wireless charging device [fig. 1, charging device 1], wherein the wireless charging device comprises
a coil unit [fig. 1, coil unit 2; par. 28];
a cooling unit disposed on the coil unit, comprising an inlet and an outlet, and having a sealed inner space through which cooling fluid is circulated [fig. 1, fluid pipe 5 (a cooling unit) is disclosed on and around the coil unit 2, and comprises an inlet 5a and an outlet 5b, with a sealed inner space in which the fluid is circulated; pars. 8 & 28-29];
a magnetic unit disposed in the inner space of the cooling unit [fig. 1, ferrite assembly 10 (ferrite is magnetic) is within 5; par. 31]; and
a fixing unit for fixing the magnetic unit [fig. 1, “retaining device 6”; par. 31], wherein the cooling water is supplied through the inlet, comes into thermal contact with the magnetic unit, and is discharged through the outlet [fig. 1; pars. 28-31].
Laemmle does not explicitly disclose the fluid is water.
However, Ansari discloses an electric vehicle charging device [abs.] with fluid cooling wherein the fluid is water [par. 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laemmle to further include the fluid is water, since water is a cheap, effective and known coolant, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, Laemmle discloses wherein the transportation means is an electric vehicle [par. 8, “electrically operated motor vehicle”], and the cooling fluid is cooling fluid for automobiles [it follows that since the charging device is attached to an electric vehicle (a type of automobile) that the cooling fluid for said charging device is “is cooling fluid for automobiles”].
Laemmle does not explicitly disclose the fluid is water.
However, Ansari as applied in claim 9 discloses wherein the fluid is water [par. 32].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle US PGPUB 2020/0398687 in view of Ansari et al. US PGPUB 2017/0338023, and further in view of Yuasa US PGPUB 2018/0374624.
Regarding claim 5, Laemmle discloses wherein the cooling water is supplied into the cooling unit in a first direction and then discharged to the outside in the first direction [fig. 1, fluid travels from left to right], and the magnetic unit comprises a first magnetic unit and a second magnetic unit spaced apart from each other [fig. 1 magnetic units 11 are spaced apart from each by the retaining device 6].
The combination of Laemmle and Ansari does not explicitly disclose the magnetic units are spaced apart from each other by 1 mm or more in a direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Yuasa discloses an electric vehicle charging system [fig. 1, abs] with a cooled receiver [abs.] wherein the magnetic units are spaced apart from each other by in a direction perpendicular to the first direction [fig. 3; divided ferrite plates 46-50 composing the ferrite plate 34 has spaces perpendicular to the direction of air flow (A, also in fig. 3); see also fig. 5, with divided ferrite plates 162 perpendicular to B]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Laemmle and Ansari to further include wherein the magnetic units are spaced apart from each other by in a direction perpendicular to the first direction for the purpose of increasing the structural strength by having the ferrite channels cross perpendicular to the baffle/channel for air, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Laemmle, Ansari and Yuasa does not explicitly disclose the spacing is 1 mm or more.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the inductive charging arts to use spacing for magnetics units of 1 mm or more, for example in large units like those for vehicles or even larger machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Laemmle, Ansari and Yuasa to further include the spacing is 1 mm or more for the purpose of designing a large unit, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle US PGPUB 2020/0398687 in view of Ansari et al. US PGPUB 2017/0338023, and further in view of Lee et al. US PGPUB 2022/0328232.
The applied Lee reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 6, Laemmle does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic unit has a structure in which two or more layers are stacked, and the respective layers are spaced apart from each other by 1 mm or more.
The combination of Laemmle and Ansari does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic unit has a structure in which two or more layers are stacked, and the respective layers are spaced apart from each other by 1 mm or more.
However, Lee discloses an electric vehicle charging system with a cooled coil receiving system wherein the magnetic unit has a structure in which two or more layers are stacked, and the respective layers are spaced apart from each other by 1 mm or more [pars. 97, 106, 151 & 161-162; a plurality of magnetic sheets can be stacked with a cooling channel in between, which can have a thickness of at least 1mm, thus a vertical stack with spacing of 1 mm or more].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Laemmle and Ansari to further include wherein the magnetic unit has a structure in which two or more layers are stacked, and the respective layers are spaced apart from each other by 1 mm or more for the purpose of allowing a thicker magnetic unit despite the material and dealing with heat inside the magnetic unit by inserting the cooling channel within, as taught by Lee (pars. 97 & 157).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 4, 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 wireless charging device has a heat generation temperature reduction rate of 40% or more calculated by the following equation: wherein H1 is the temperature (°C) of the magnetic unit at the time of wireless charging for 60 minutes at a frequency of 85 kHz without circulating cooling water, and H2 is the temperature (°C) of the magnetic unit at the time of wireless charging for 60 minutes at a frequency of 85 kHz while circulating cooling water ” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 4 and claim 1, from which claim 4 depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Van Boheemen et al. US PGPUB 2017/0274778 discloses a cooling unit for an inductive power receiver for a vehicle.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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