DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 2/11/2026
Hereon, claims 1-15 are currently pending; claims 1-15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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) 1,5-11,14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehrabi et al, (Mehrabi), (USPATNO.10,938,251) in view of Ekselius et al, (Ekselius), (USNO.2017/0047737)
As for claim 1, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 a wireless charging panel configured to electrically connect to a power supply device for wirelessly charging a battery of an electronic device, the wireless charging panel comprising: a pad element; an electrical connector (via ref’s cable) configured to electrically connect the pad element to the power supply device; and a wireless energy transfer assembly housed within the pad element, the wireless energy transfer assembly including: a wire coil electrically connected to the electrical connector and configured to receive an electric current from the power supply device and convert the electric current into electromagnetic energy, and an antenna array (within ref’s planar coil array) configured to transmit the electromagnetic energy from the pad element (col.4, line 48– col. 5, line 14, col.15, lines 4-26).
Mehbrahi discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose transmit from an element as microwave energy
Ekselius discloses transmit from an element as microwave energy (par.[0070])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified teachings of Mehbrahi by transmiting from an element as microwave energy for advantages such as providing access to the grid from remote locations (par.[0070]) , as taught by Ekselius.
As for claim 5, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 4 a stand configured to support the pad element a predetermined distance above a surface on which the wireless charging panel is mounted.
As for claim 6, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 4 the stand includes a horizontally extending surface fixing portion for fixing the wireless charging panel to a surface on which the wireless charging panel is configured to be mounted, and a vertically extending pad element fixing portion for fixing the pad element on the stand.
As for claim 7, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 4 the horizontally extending surface fixing portion includes a through hole for fixing the stand to the surface with a fixing device.
As for claim 8, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 electrical connector is accessible from an outside of the pad element.
As for claim 9, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 pad element includes a case and the wireless energy transfer assembly is housed within the case.
As for claim 10, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 case includes a front panel and a rear panel secured together at a periphery of the case
As for claim 11, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 electrical connector is located on the rear panel.
As for claim 14, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 a circuit board housed within the pad element that is electrically connected to the electrical connector and the wire coil
As for claim 15, Mehrabi discloses and shows in Fig. 6 the circuit board is configured to receive a direct current electric current from the electrical connector, convert the direct current electric current into an alternating current electric current, and transmit the alternating current electric current to the wire coil, and the electric current is received by and converted into electromagnetic energy by the wire coil
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehbrahi in view with Ekselius and further in view Lee et al, (Lee), (USPATNO.11,777,341)
As for claim 2 Mehbrahi in combination with Ekselius discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose antenna includes a 4-diode arrangement, 2-terminal circuit element rectifier circuit
Lee discloses and shows in Fig. 3D antenna includes a 4-diode arrangement, 2-terminal circuit element rectifier circuit (col.8,lines 45-56)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the combined teachings of Mehbrahi and Ekselius by having antenna includes a 4-diode arrangement, 2-terminal circuit element rectifier circuit for advantages such as providing efficient power conversion (col.8, line 51), as taught by Lee.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehbrahi in view with Ekselius and further in view of Denker et al, (Denker), (USNO.2007/0075905)
As for claims 3 and 4, Mehbrahi in combination with Ekselius discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose antenna array is made of semiconductor materials and antenna array is made of a nickel-titanium composite.
Denker discloses antenna array is made of semiconductor materials. Futhermore, Denker discloses antenna array is made of a nickel-titanium composite (par.[0030])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the combined teachings of Mehbrahi and Ekselius by using antenna array is made of semiconductor materials and antenna array is made of a nickel-titanium composite for advantages such as providing efficient (par.[0030]) , as taught by Denker.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehbrahi in view with Ekselius and further in view of Covic, (USNO.2014/0239729).
As for claim 12, Mehbrahi in combination with Ekselius discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose wireless energy transfer assembly further includes a plurality of ferrite bars positioned adjacent to the coil.
Covic discloses and shows in Fig. 2 wireless energy transfer assembly further includes a plurality of ferrite bars positioned adjacent to the coil (par.[0010])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the combined teachings of Mehbrahi and Ekselius by using wireless energy transfer assembly further includes a plurality of ferrite bars positioned adjacent to the coil for advantages such as providing the ability to propagate efficient direction (par.[0010]) , as taught by Covic.
As for claim 13, Mehbrahi in combination with Ekselius and Covic discloses the plurality of ferrite bars is fixed into a metallic frame connected to the wire coil for magnetic shielding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights