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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 03/07/2023 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 19 are independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the applicant uses boxes to illustrate structural components. These alone do not facilitate understanding of the drawings. To overcome this objection, the applicant should add more details in the drawings (e.g., clear symbols, text in the boxes, arrows with text coming off, or a legend in the drawings).
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.
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: 31 in Fig. 16. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “the coil support slider” in ¶[84] and ¶[85] are missing a reference character for support in the drawings. Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 replace “the” with --an-- so that it reads “an electronic device” in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as “an electronic device”, however, 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Osada (USPGPN 20200203995; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 19, Osada teaches a wireless charging device, comprising one or more alignment mechanisms and at least two transmit coils (Fig. 4B; ¶[92-94]).
Osada teaches a wireless charging base, comprising a power interface, an upper cover, a lower cover, one or more alignment mechanisms, and at least two transmit coils (Figs. 1B, 4B; a housing 150 for wireless charging, comprising an AC power source 111, an upper cover, a lower cover, a moving device 140, and two power-feeding coils 110).
Osada teaches the one or more alignment mechanisms and the at least two transmit coils are located in a cavity formed by the upper cover and the lower cover (Fig. 4B; the moving device 140 and the two power-feeding coils 110 are located in a cavity formed by the upper cover and the lower cover of the housing 150).
Osada teaches the power interface is disposed on a side of the cavity and the power interface is configured to connect a direct current transmitted by an adapter (Fig. 1B; the AC power source 111 is disposed on a side of the cavity and one of ordinary skill understands the AC power source 111 is configured to connect a direct current transmitted by an adapter).
Osada teaches each of the at least two transmit coils forms a corresponding charging region on a charging plane, charging regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils are interconnected or overlap, and the charging plane is located on a surface, of the wireless charging device, that is used for placing the electronic device (Figs. 1B, 2A, 4B; the two power-feeding coils 110 form a charging region on a charging plane which is located on the surface of housing 150 in which the charging regions are interconnected or overlap with regions 133a, 133b, and/or 133c for charging an electronic device 300).
Osada teaches the at least two transmit coils comprises a first transmit coil configured to wirelessly charge a first electronic device and a second transmit coil configured to wirelessly charge a second electronic device (Fig. 4B; two power-feeding coils 110 that can wirelessly charge a first electronic device 300 and a second electronic device 300).
Osada teaches the one or more alignment mechanisms are configured to drive the first transmit coil and the second transmit coil to be aligned with respective receive coils of a first electronic device and a second electronic device, such that the first transmit coil and the second transmit coil wirelessly charge the first electronic device and the second electronic device, respectively (¶[42], ¶[49]; an optimal position is determined to align the power-receiving coils 210 with the power-feeding coils 110 so that the first electronic device 300 and the second electronic device 300 may be wirelessly charged).
With respect to claim 15, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Osada teaches comprising a circuit board, wherein the one or more alignment mechanisms and the circuit board are stacked in the vertical direction, and the vertical direction is a direction perpendicular to the charging plane (Figs. 1B, 4A-4B; control device 120 and the alignment mechanisms are stacked along the +/- Z-axis which is perpendicular to the X-Y plane of the charging plane).
With respect to claim 18, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Osada teaches a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the one or more alignment mechanisms to drive transmit coils of the N transmit coils to be respectively aligned with receive coils of different receiving devices of the at least two electronic devices (Figs. 1B, 4B; ¶[44-45]; a control device 120 that has a function of controlling the alignment mechanisms to drive the power-feeding coils 110 to be aligned with the power-receiving coil 210 of at least two power-receiving devices 200).
With respect to claim 20, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Further, Osada teaches wherein the at least two transmit coils comprise N transmit coils, and the N transmit coils simultaneously wirelessly charge N different electronic devices (Fig. 4B; two power-feeding coils 110 that can wirelessly charge a first electronic device 300 and a second electronic device 300).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (USPGPN 20200203995).
With respect to claim 2, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach wherein projections, on the charging plane, of center alignment regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils of the at least two transmit coils do not overlap, and the center alignment regions are regions in which centers of the two adjacent transmit coils are able to be respectively aligned with centers of receive coils of corresponding electronic devices.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill to configure the device such that, wherein projections, on the charging plane, of center alignment regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils of the at least two transmit coils do not overlap, and the center alignment regions are regions in which centers of the two adjacent transmit coils are able to be respectively aligned with centers of receive coils of corresponding electronic devices. The advantage of this being non-overlapping center alignment regions for adjacent transmit coils is primarily about control, efficiency, and reliability in a multi-device wireless charger.
With respect to claim 3, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach wherein projections, on the charging plane, of center alignment regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils of the at least two transmit coils overlap, and the center alignment regions are regions in which centers of the two adjacent transmit coils are able to be respectively aligned with centers of receive coils of corresponding electronic devices.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill to configure the device such that, wherein projections, on the charging plane, of center alignment regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils of the at least two transmit coils overlap, and the center alignment regions are regions in which centers of the two adjacent transmit coils are able to be respectively aligned with centers of receive coils of corresponding electronic devices. The advantage of this being that if the center alignment regions of adjacent transmit coils are allowed to overlap, then flexibility, misalignment tolerance, and user experience are improved.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (USPGPN 20200203995) and further in view of Shoichi et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2014003903-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023).
With respect to claim 4, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Shoichi teaches the one or more alignment mechanisms comprising at least two alignment mechanisms each corresponding to one of the at least two transmit coils; wherein each alignment mechanism comprises a first motor and a second motor; the first motor is configured to drive a corresponding transmit coil to move along a first direction; the second motor is configured to drive the corresponding transmit coil to move along a second direction; and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (Fig. 2; ¶[41-43]; each power transmission coil 11 is moved by the moving mechanism 13 comprising multiple sets of drive mechanisms that move the power transmission coil 11 in directions that intersect each other (i.e., perpendicular). Each drive mechanism 40 includes a Y-axis drive mechanism 40B and an X-axis drive mechanism 40A to move the power transmission coils 11. The drive mechanisms 40A/40B include a Y-axis actuator 43 and an X-axis actuator 45 which are motors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Shoichi’s X-axis and Y-axis motor based coil movement feature to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that by controlling the movement of the charging device it can efficiently charge multiple battery-powered devices while controlling each built-in battery to preferred charging conditions, regardless of where the devices are placed on the top surface of the case, thereby reducing heat generation in the battery-powered devices and their built-in batteries (see ¶[10] of Shoichi).
With respect to claim 8, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. Further, Osada teaches wherein the at least two alignment mechanisms are located on one plane (Fig. 4B; at least two alignment mechanisms are located on one plane).
Claims 5-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada and Shoichi, and further in view of Yamanishi et al. (USPGPN 20170054320; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023).
With respect to claim 5, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Osada fails to teach the limitations of claim 5.
Yamanishi teaches wherein each alignment mechanism further comprises a first guide rod (Figs. 4-5; X-axis direction driving shaft 22), a second guide rod (Figs. 4-5; Y-axis direction driving shaft 23), a first screw rod (Figs. 4-5; worm 32), a second screw rod (Figs. 4-5; worm 27), and a coil support slider (Figs. 4-5; X-axis and Y-axis through-holes 24).
Yamanishi teaches the first screw rod and the second screw rod are perpendicular to each other, the first guide rod and the second guide rod are perpendicular to each other, the first screw rod is disposed along the first direction, and the second screw rod is disposed along the second direction (Figs. 4-5; the worm 32 and the worm 27 are perpendicular to each other, the X-axis driving shaft 22 and the Y-axis driving shaft 23 are perpendicular to each other, the worm 32 is disposed along the first direction (i.e., X-axis), and the worm 27 is disposed along the second direction (i.e,. Y-axis)).
Yamanishi teaches the coil support slider is sleeved at a junction between the first guide rod and the second guide rod, and the coil support slider is configured to support a corresponding transmit coil (Figs. 4-5; the X-axis and Y-axis through-holes 24 are sleeved at a junction between the X-axis driving shaft 22 and the Y-axis driving shaft 23, and the through-holes 24 support a charging coil 8).
Yamanishi teaches the first motor is fastened at an end of the first screw rod (Figs. 4-5; the driving motor 33 is fastened at an end of the worm 32).
Yamanishi teaches the second motor is fastened at an end of the second screw rod (Figs. 4-5; the driving motor 28 is fastened at an end of the worm 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Yamanishi’s motor driven X-Y axis support system to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that damage from excessive loads applied to the support system is prevented (see ¶[63] of Yamanishi).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the first guide rod is sleeved on the first screw rod, the first motor drives the first guide rod to move along the first screw rod, the second guide rod is sleeved on the second screw rod, and the second motor drives the second guide rod to move along the second screw rod.
Considering MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yamanishi’s screw rods and guide rods in a manner in which the first guide rod is sleeved on the first screw rod, the first motor drives the first guide rod to move along the first screw rod, the second guide rod is sleeved on the second screw rod, and the second motor drives the second guide rod to move along the second screw rod.
MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
With respect to claim 6, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Yamanishi teaches wherein each alignment mechanism further comprises a support rod (Figs. 4-5; gear plates 29/34).
Yamanishi teaches for each alignment mechanism, the support rod is disposed in parallel with the first screw rod (Figs. 4-5; gear plates 29/34 are disposed in parallel with the respective worm 29/34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Yamanishi’s motor driven X-Y axis support system to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that damage from excessive loads applied to the support system is prevented (see ¶[63] of Yamanishi).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach a first end of the first guide rod is sleeved on the first screw rod, and a second end of the first guide rod is sleeved on the support rod.
Considering MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yamanishi’s support rods and the screw rods in a manner in which a first end of the first guide rod is sleeved on the first screw rod, and a second end of the first guide rod is sleeved on the support rod.
MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
With respect to claim 7, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. However, Osada fails to teach the limitations of claim 7.
Yamanishi teaches, wherein each alignment mechanism further comprises a tray (Figs. 4-5; a holding body 16).
Yamanishi teaches the tray is disposed on each coil support slider, and the tray is configured to carry a corresponding transmit coil (Figs. 4-5; the holding body 16 is disposed on the X-axis and Y-axis through-holes 24, and the holding body 16 is configured to carry a charging coil 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Yamanishi’s motor driven X-Y axis support system to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that damage from excessive loads applied to the support system is prevented (see ¶[63] of Yamanishi).
With respect to claim 14, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill to configure the device such that, wherein a height of the N trays is adjustable, so that the at least two transmit coils are respectively located on different planes. The advantage of this being adjusting the height of the magnetic coil allows for optimization of the magnetic field strength, allowing the wireless charging device to maximize power transfer and minimize interference from adjacent coils and/or devices.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada and Shoichi, and further in view of Shouzen (Chinese Patent CN-105978075-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS).
With respect to claim 9, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9.
Shoichi teaches wherein the at least two transmit coils further comprise a third transmit coil, and the at least two alignment mechanisms comprise a first alignment mechanism, a second alignment mechanism, and a third alignment mechanism that are coupled to the first transmit coil, the second transmit coil and the third transmit coil, respectively (Fig. 8; three power transmitting coils 11 with three alignment mechanisms coupled each to it's respective power transmitting coil 11).
Shoichi teaches the first alignment mechanism and the second alignment mechanism are sequentially arranged along the first direction (Fig. 8; the two of the three alignment mechanisms are sequentially arranged along the first direction (i.e., X-axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Shoichi’s X-axis and Y-axis motor based coil movement feature to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that by controlling the movement of the charging device it can efficiently charge multiple battery-powered devices while controlling each built-in battery to preferred charging conditions, regardless of where the devices are placed on the top surface of the case, thereby reducing heat generation in the battery-powered devices and their built-in batteries (see ¶[10] of Shoichi).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the third alignment mechanism is arranged along the first direction, both the first alignment mechanism and the third alignment mechanism are at a first height in a vertical direction; the second alignment mechanism is at a second height in the vertical direction, and the first height and the second height are different; and there is no spacing between projections, on the charging plane, of center alignment regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils of the at least two transmit coils.
Shouzen teaches the first alignment mechanism is at a first height in a vertical direction (Fig. 2; the first transmit coil 3 (e.g., from left to right) is at a first height in a vertical direction depicted by how the other coils are positioned vertically on top of the first coil).
Shouzen teaches the second alignment mechanism is at a second height in the vertical direction, and the first height and the second height are different (Fig. 2; the second transmit coil 3 (e.g., the one in the middle) is at a second height in the vertical direction, and the first height and the second height are different).
Shouzen teaches there is no spacing between projections, on the charging plane, of center alignment regions corresponding to two adjacent transmit coils of the at least two transmit coils (Fig. 2; there is no spacing between the charging regions 11, on the front cover 1, of the center alignment regions corresponding to the three transmit coils 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Shouzen’s multiple charging coil apparatus to Osada’s wireless charging system in order to have a wireless charging system that has multiple charging coils at different heights and that have no spacing between projections on the charging plane. The advantage of this being a wireless charger that can charge multiple devices, has stable performance, and high charging efficiency (in ¶[09] of Shouzen).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the third alignment mechanism is arranged along the first direction; and the first alignment mechanism and the third alignment mechanism is both at a first height.
Considering MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shoichi’s third alignment mechanism in a manner in which the third alignment is arranged along the first direction the first alignment mechanism and the third alignment mechanism is both at a first height.
MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada, and further in view of Terao et al. (USPGPN 20120043931; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023).
With respect to claim 10, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Osada teaches N is a quantity of the at least two transmit coils, and N is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Fig. 4B; multiple power-feeding coils 110 with their respective alignment mechanisms and motors wherein N is an integer representing the amount of power-feeding coils 110 which is greater than or equal to 2).
Osada teaches the corresponding transmit coils are respectively placed on the motors (Fig. 4B; ¶[92]; the coil base 143 includes tires 144 that are driven with an electric motor in which one of ordinary skill understands the power-feeding coils 110 are placed on the motors).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the remaining limitations of claim 10.
Terao teaches wherein the one or more alignment mechanisms comprise N first motors, N second motors, one first screw rod, and N second screw rods (Figs. 1-3; the moving mechanism 13 comprises motor 22A, motor 22B, threaded rod 23A, and threaded rod 23B).
Terao teaches the N first motors are movably sleeved on the first screw rod (Figs. 1-3; motor 22B is movably sleeved on threaded rod 23B).
Terao teaches the N second motors are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N second screw rods, each second motor is movably sleeved on a corresponding second screw rod (Figs. 1-3; motor 22A is in a one-to-one correspondence with the threaded rod 23A and motor 22A is movably sleeved to threaded rod 23A).
Terao teaches the N second screw rods are perpendicular to the first screw rod, the N second screw rods are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N first motors, and each second screw rod is fixed to a corresponding first motor (Figs. 1-3; threaded rod 23A is perpendicular to threaded rod 23B, the threaded rod 23A is in a one-to-one correspondence with the motor 22B, and the threaded rod 23A is fixed to motor 22B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Terao’s alignment mechanism to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this modification being the device allows a power supply coil to be placed beneath the top plate of the case in a horizontal orientation to move along inside the top plate, so that efficiency of power transmission from the power supply coil to the induction coil is improved by narrowing the gap between the power supply coil and the induction coil (see ¶[64] of Terao).
With respect to claim 13, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Further, Osada teaches wherein the one or more alignment mechanisms further comprise N trays, and the N trays are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N second motors; and each tray is disposed on a corresponding second motor, and each tray is configured to carry a corresponding transmit coil (Fig. 4B; ¶[92]; the alignment mechanisms comprise each a coil base 143, and the coil base 143 is in a one-to-one correspondence with the motor; each coil base 143 is disposed on the motor, and each coil base 143 is configured to carry a power-feeding coil 110).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada and Terao, and further in view of Yamanishi et al. (USPGPN 20170054320; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023).
With respect to claim 11, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11.
Yamanishi teaches wherein the one or more alignment mechanisms further comprise one first guide rod and N second guide rods (Figs. 4-5; X-axis direction driving shaft 22 and Y-axis direction driving shaft 23).
Yamanishi teaches the first guide rod is disposed in parallel with the first screw rod, the N second guide rods are in a one-to-one correspondence with and are disposed in parallel with the N second screw rods, and the N second motors are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N second guide rods (Figs. 4-5; X-axis direction driving shaft 22 is in parallel with worm 32, the Y-axis direction driving shaft 23 is in a one-to-one correspondence with and are disposed in parallel with the worm 27; and the motor 28 is in a one-to-one correspondence with the worm 27).
Yamanishi teaches the N first motors are movably sleeved on the first guide rod; and each second motor is movably sleeved on a corresponding second guide rod (Figs. 4-5; the motor 33 and the motor 28 are each sleeved with the X-axis direction driving shaft 22 and the Y-axis direction driving shaft 23 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Yamanishi’s motor driven X-Y axis support system to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that damage from excessive loads applied to the support system is prevented (see ¶[63] of Yamanishi).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada and Terao, and further in view of further in view of Shoichi et al. (Japanese Patent JP-2014003903-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023)..
With respect to claim 12, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 12.
Terao teaches N sliders are disposed on the guide rod, the N sliders are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N guide rods, and the N sliders are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N screw rods (Figs. 2-3; the slider housing the power supply coil 11 is disposed on the guide rod 26 which is in a one-to-one correspondence, and the slider is in a one-to-one correspondence with the threaded rod 23B).
Terao teaches the screw rods and the guide rods each are connected to a corresponding slider (Figs. 2-3; the threaded rod 23B and the guide rod 26 are connected to the corresponding slider).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Terao’s alignment mechanism to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this modification being the device allows a power supply coil to be placed beneath the top plate of the case in a horizontal orientation to move along inside the top plate, so that efficiency of power transmission from the power supply coil to the induction coil is improved by narrowing the gap between the power supply coil and the induction coil (see ¶[64] of Terao).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more alignment mechanisms further comprise a third guide rod disposed in parallel with the first guide rod.
Shoichi teaches wherein the one or more alignment mechanisms further comprise a third guide rod disposed in parallel with the first guide rod (Fig. 8; the third X-axis guide 44 is in parallel with the first X-axis guide 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Shoichi’s X-axis and Y-axis motor based coil movement feature to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that by controlling the movement of the charging device it can efficiently charge multiple battery-powered devices while controlling each built-in battery to preferred charging conditions, regardless of where the devices are placed on the top surface of the case, thereby reducing heat generation in the battery-powered devices and their built-in batteries (see ¶[10] of Shoichi).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada (USPGPN 20200203995) and further in view of Schlachte et al. (USPGPN 20190052104).
With respect to claim 16, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 16.
Schlachte teaches an upper housing and a flat plate (Fig. 2; upper housing portion 22a and charging assembly 24).
Schlachte teaches the flat plate is disposed directly under the upper housing, and the upper housing is disposed in parallel with the flat plate (Fig. 2; the charging assembly 24 is disposed directly under the upper housing portion 22a, and the upper housing portion 22a is disposed in parallel with the charging assembly 24).
Schlachte teaches an air vent is provided on the flat plate (Fig. 2; airflow vents 34 are provided on the charging assembly 24).
Schlachte teaches a gap layer is provided between the upper housing and the flat plate (Fig. 2; a gap layer is provided between the upper housing portion 22a and the charging assembly 24).
Schlachte teaches an air duct is provided at a location, on a side surface of the wireless charging device, that corresponds to the gap layer (Fig. 2; an air mover device 26 is provided on the side of the charging device 14 that corresponds to the gap layer).
Schlachte teaches cold air enters the gap layer through the air duct, and enters an inner cavity of the wireless charging device through the air vent on the flat plate, to dissipate heat for the transmit coil (Fig. 2; cold air enters the gap layer through the air mover device 26, and enters cavity 40 through the airflow vents 34 on the charging assembly 24, to dissipate heat from the coil 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Schlacte’s wireless charger air cooling system to Osada’s wireless charging device. The advantage of this being the battery of mobile device can be charged more efficiently and quickly, while prolonging the life of charging device. The heated air moving away from the components and out of cavity can prevent, or minimize adverse effects of the heat on the various components, while allowing charging coil to charge the battery more efficiently (see ¶[25] of Schlachte).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada and Schlachte, and further in view of Yamanishi et al. (USPGPN 20170054320; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the European Search Opinion dated 05/30/2023).
With respect to claim 17, Osada teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Osada teaches N is a quantity of transmit coils, and N is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Fig. 4B; multiple power-feeding coils 110 with their respective alignment mechanisms and motors wherein N is an integer representing the amount of power-feeding coils 110 which is greater than or equal to 2).
However, Osada fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 17.
Yamanishi teaches wherein N grooves are provided on an outer surface of the upper housing (Fig. 3; the grooves provided on an outer surface of the upper housing).
Yamanishi teaches the N grooves are configured to limit a location of an electronic device whose size is smaller than a size of the groove, and the groove is further configured to indicate a placement location of an electronic device whose size is greater than the size of the groove during wireless charging (Fig. 3; the grooves are configured to limit a location of mobile terminal 15 whose size is smaller than the grooves, and the grooves are further configured to indicate a placement location of the mobile terminal 15 whose size is greater than the size of the groove during wireless charging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Yamanishi’s support system to Osada’s wireless charging apparatus. The advantage of this being that damage from excessive loads applied to the support system is prevented (see ¶[63] of Yamanishi).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (USPGPN 20190267185) teaches a wireless power transmitting apparatus can include a first transmitting coil; a second transmitting coil; a third transmitting coil on the first transmitting coil and the second transmitting coil; and a substrate to accommodate the first transmitting coil, the second transmitting coil, and the third transmitting coil.
The following were identified by the applicant in the IDS and/or cited in the Foreign Office Actions, however, were not relied upon by the examiner for citation purposes:
WO 2022052667 A1
US 20160190851 A1
US 20140285140 A1
CN 212012162 U
CN 210867237 U
CN 209562186 U
CN 208835843 U
CN 103618350 A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights