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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 01/06/23 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected. For example, in claim 1, the phrases “a first system out of an electrical energy transmitter system” and “a second system… out of an electrical energy transmitter” is grammatically awkward.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. No legal phraseology including the term ‘said’ is allowed in the title.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second system of contactless electrical energy transfer device” of claim 14 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because blank item 46 in figure 7 should have a descriptive label such as “battery.”
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Paragraph 28 in the specification very briefly summarized “a second system of contactless electrical energy transfer device.” However, the specification does not go into detail how this second system of transfer device is related to the first system of transfer device or its relationship to the flying vehicle. Moreover, there is no drawing showing this second system of transfer device and its relationship between the first system of transfer device and the flying vehicle.
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 1-15 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.
Re claim 1, the second occurrence of the limitations “an electrical energy transmitter system” and “an electrical energy receiver system” on lines 4-5 is confusing because these transmitter system and receiver system are same ones as the first system. It should be labeled as “the electrical energy…” for both limitations. The limitation “small column” on the fourth line from the bottom should be labeled as “the at least one small column” for claim consistency. The limitation “a first zone without wire” on the third line from the bottom is confusing because there is already a claim for “at least one first zone without wire” on line 12.
Re claims 2-4, the limitation “the small column” should be labeled as “the at least one small column” for claim consistency.
Re claim 5, the limitation “at least one small column” is confusing because there already a claim for “at least one small column” in claim 1, fourth from the bottom.
Re claims 6 and 7, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 8, the limitation “the volume” on line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claim 9, the limitation “each extension of the volume of filled resin” is confusing because there does not seem to be a correlation between the volume of resin and the extension in claim 8.
Re claims 10 and 11, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 12, the limitation “each extension of the volume of filled resin” is confusing because there does not seem to be a correlation between the volume of resin and the extension in claim 8.
Re claims 13-15, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean document KR 20160015716.
Re claim 1, the document discloses a contactless energy transfer device having, inter alia, a first system 500 and a second system 300 different from the first system; the first system 500 having a first housing 700 having a first face oriented toward the second system 300 when they are magnetically coupled (fig 5), at least one first coil 550 and a layer of ferromagnet element 530 positioned in the first housing 700, the first coil 550 having first winding around at least one first zone 510 without wire and a first winding axis at a right angle to the first face (fig 7); the second system 300 having a second housing 331 having a second face oriented toward the first system 500 when they are magnetically coupled, at least one second coil 350 positioned in the housing 331, the second coil 350 having at least one second winding around at least one second zone without wire (i.e. “donut hole”) and a second winding axis; wherein the first system having a small column 510 (fig 7) extended between the first and second ends having longitudinal direction linking first and second ends parallel to the first winding axis, the small column passing through the first coil by passing through the first zone without wire (fig 7); and wherein the second system 300 having resin filled with ferromagnetic particles 330 in the second housing 331. See figs 5 and 7.
Re claim 2, the first end (e.g. bottom end) of the small column 510 is in contact with the layer of ferromagnetic elements 330 (fig 7).
Re claim 3, the second end (e.g. top end) of the small column 510 protruded with respect to the first face of the first housing 700 (figs 5 and 7).
Re claim 7, each small column is made of ferromagnetic material 510 (fig 5).
Re claim 15, a drone base for a drone 100 is disclosed having the first system 500 (fig 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean document KR 20160015716.
Re claims 4 and 6, the document is silent on the specific length and surface area of the columns and zones. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected any appropriate length and/or surface area (in percentage) since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 5, the document does not disclose more than one zone wherein each zone has a small column. Official notice is taken of the fact that having more than one column together with the respective zone would allow for a more stable base to receive the UAV/drone during charging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided more than one column with its zone to ensure a more stable base to receive the charging device UAV.
Re claim 14, the document discloses a battery 150. However, it does not disclose a second system of contactless energy transfer device. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a second or an additional system of contactless energy transfer device with all the claimed features of the first system of contactless energy transfer device would behave as a backup or failed safe device for the UAV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a second system of contactless energy transfer device with all the fixings of the first system of contactless energy transfer device in order to provide a piece of mind to the operator of the UAV.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 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; and satisfied 35 USC 112 requirements.
Art made of record does not disclose or suggest at least the limitations in claim 8 and subsequent depending claims 9-13. Art fails to show/suggest structures including an outer face opposite the inner face and a thickness corresponding to a distance separating the inner and outer faces, and wherein the volume of filled resin is formed as a body arranged between the outer face of the second coil and a first face of the second housing opposite the second face of the second housing, and at least one extension passing through at least one second zone without wire of the second coil, towards the second face of the second housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art shows state of the art of contactless charging a UAV or drone.
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 7:30am-7:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. 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