DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in figures 10-11 (all subfigures) and 14-18 should be provided with descriptive text labels. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allow a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention (figure 4 is a good example of how the boxes should be labeled). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,119 in view of German document DE 102013227129 A1. See machine translation.
[Note: method steps claims performed by structural limitations of apparatus claims are grouped accordingly below].
Re claims 1 and 11, patent claim 1 claimed a housing (patented “first housing”) including: a first transceiver (patented “first coil”), and a second transceiver (patented “second coil”), wherein each of the first transceiver and the second transceiver can function as both a wireless power receiver and a wireless power transmitter (patented “wherein each of the first coil and the second coil of the first housing can function as both receiver coil and a transmitter coil”); an orientation sensor configured to sense a magnetic orientation of an external device (patented “an orientation of the second housing” (the external device is the second housing)); and a first control logic to control the functioning of at least one of the first and second transceiver based at least on the magnetic orientation of the external device (patented “a second control logic to control the functioning of the first and second coil of the second housing depending on an orientation of the second housing). Patent claim 1 does not explicitly claimed a magnetic sensor sensing a magnetic orientation. The German document teaches an inductive charging system having a sensor for detecting the position of the coils by detecting the magnetic orientation field (para 14 and 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to having included the teaching of an orientation sensor of the German document into pending claim 1 in order to better align the coils/housing.
Re claims 2 and 12, patent claim 1 further claimed the orientation sensor further configured to sense the orientation of the housing (patented “the functioning of the first and second coil of the first housing depending on an orientation of the first housing”), and the first control logic adjusts a magnetic orientation of the first transceiver to configure the first transceiver to function as a transmitter (patented “wherein each of the first coil and the second coil of the first housing can function as both receiver coil and a transmitter coil”)
Re claims 3 and 13, the German document discloses a magnetic body (i.e. a magnet) wherein the first control logic adjusts the magnetic orientation by moving the magnetic body (para 51-52).
Re claims 4 and 14, the German further document discloses an electromagnet (para 38: coils wound around a core of ferromagnetic material); and a power source supply power to the electromagnet wherein the control logic adjusts the magnetic orientation by controlling the power source (para 11: the orientation field can correspond to a charging field in term of frequency and/or field strength, with which the transmitting charging coil transfer power)[in other word, field strength is controlled via transmitting charging coil and powering charging coils is supplied via power supply of charger].
Re claims 5 and 15, the German further document discloses the first control logic configured to adjust strength of the wireless transmitting power (para 11: charging field can be operated with a power output of at least 1kW, 2kW, 3kW or 5kW (this power output indicates the power transferred from the transmitting charging coil)).
Re claims 6 and 16, the German document further discloses the orientation sensor senses the magnetic orientation of the external device by detecting the magnetic field from the external device (para 14).
Re claims 7 and 17, patent claim 1 in view of the German document is silent on having a wireless power transfer protocol. Official notice is taken of the fact that wireless chargers use power transfer protocol to ensure a safe and efficient charging. For example, the widely adopted protocol is Qi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have employed a wireless power transfer protocol sensor to ensure a safe, efficient and operable charging between the emitters and receivers.
Re claims 8 and 18, patent claim 4 claimed a first transceiver (patented “first coil…functioned as a transmitter coil”) configured as first coil, and a second transceiver (patented “second coil…functioned as a transmitter coil”) configured as second coil.
Re claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, patent claim 1 in view of the German document does not claim plurality of high frequency power transmitters/receivers and control logic configured to select one to transmit power. The German document discloses only the frequency might be selective. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected high frequencies for the power transmitters/receivers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No.11,689,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
[Note: method steps claims performed by structural limitations of apparatus claims are grouped accordingly below].
Re claims 1 and 11, patent claims 1 and 3 claimed a housing (patent claim 1 “first housing”) including: a first transceiver (patent claim 1 “first coil”), and a second transceiver (patented “second coil”), wherein each of the first transceiver and the second transceiver can function as both a wireless power receiver and a wireless power transmitter (patent claim 1 “wherein each of the first coil and the second coil of the first housing can function as both receiver coil and a transmitter coil”); an orientation sensor (patent claim 3: “an orientation sensor”) configured to sense a magnetic orientation of an external device (patent claim 1 “able to detect a magnetic field associated with the device); and a first control logic to control the functioning of at least one of the first and second transceiver based at least on the magnetic orientation of the external device (patent claim 1 “the first control logic controls the functioning of the first and second coil based on the detection of the magnetic field” further patent 3 “orientation of the housing with respect to the device based at least in part on the detected magnetic field”).
Re claims 2 and 12, patent claim 4 claimed sense an orientation of the housing, and the first control logic adjusts a magnetic orientation of the first transceiver to configure the first transceiver to function as a transmitter to wirelessly transmit power to the external device based on the sensed magnetic orientation of the external device and the orientation of the housing (patented “control the first coil of the first housing to function as a transmitter coil…when the first housing is in a second orientation”).
Re claims 3 and 13, patent claim 1 claimed a magnet movable within the housing (patented “include a ferrite material to detect magnetic field”).
Re claims 6 and 16, patent claims 1 and 3 claimed the orientation sensor (patent claim 3 “an orientation sensor”) senses the magnetic orientation of the device by detecting the magnetic field from the external device (patent claim 1 “to detect a magnetic field associated with the device”).
Re claims 7 and 17, claim 1 does not claim protocol sensor to identify wireless power transfer protocol. Official notice is taken of the fact that wireless chargers use power transfer protocol to ensure a safe and efficient charging. For example, the widely adopted protocol is Qi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have employed a wireless power transfer protocol sensor to ensure a safe, efficient and operable charging between the emitters and receivers.
Re claims 8 and 18, patent claim 4 claimed a first transceiver (patented “first coil…functioned as a transmitter coil”) configured as first coil, and a second transceiver (patented “second coil…functioned as a transmitter coil”) configured as second coil.
Re claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, patent claim 1 does not claim a plurality of high frequency power transmitters/receivers and control logic configured to select one to transmit power. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected high frequencies for the power transmitters/receivers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.11,689,066 in view of German document DE 102013227129 A1. See machine translation. [Note: method steps claims performed by structural limitations of apparatus claims are grouped accordingly below].
Re claims 4 and 14, patent claim 1 does not claim an electromagnet wherein the control logic adjusts the magnetic orientation. The German document teaches an electromagnet (para 38: coils wound around a core of ferromagnetic material); and a power source supply power to the electromagnet wherein the control logic adjusts the magnetic orientation by controlling the power source (para 11: the orientation field can correspond to a charging field in term of frequency and/or field strength, with which the transmitting charging coil transfer power)[in other word, field strength is controlled via transmitting charging coil and powering charging coils is supplied via power supply of charger]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized an electromagnet since the strength of field can be controlled precisely with electricity.
Re claims 5 and 15, patent claim 1 does not claim the first control logic configured to adjust the strength of the wirelessly transmitted power. The German document teaches the first control logic configured to adjust strength of the wireless transmitting power (para 11: charging field can be operated with a power output of at least 1kW, 2kW, 3kW or 5kW (this power output indicates the power transferred from the transmitting charging coil)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the teaching of the German document into claim 1 to ensure the strength of the power is controlled precisely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application 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.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087