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 07/15/2026 claims 2-22 are pending. Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 6, 8, and 12 are independent. Independent claim 6 has been amended by incorporating the limitations of claim 1 and by adding the new limitation “while the wireless power receiving device remains inside the container”. Independent claim 8 has been amended by incorporating the limitations of claim 1. Independent claim 12 has been amended by adding the new limitation “comprising, by the portable electronic device”. Dependent claims 16 and 18-20 have been amended to correct claim objections.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 6, applicant argues in pages 9-10 of the Remarks dated 07/15/2026 that Jabukowski and Choi fail to explicitly teach “while the wireless power receiving device remains inside the container”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant states that “Choi shows that electronic devices (such as 211, 212, 213, and 214 in Fig. 2A) are not in a container when their system software is updated.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, the applicant states that “Jakubowski and Choi solve two different problems. Jakubowski teaches wireless charging, while Choi teaches providing updates. The combination of Jakubowski and Choi requires the use of impermissible hindsight”. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that Choi is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Choi is directed towards the claimed limitations since Choi is within the scope of updating system software.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, page 12-13 of the Office Action dated 04/15/2026 provides a motivation to combine the references.
With respect to independent claim 8, applicant argues in pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 07/15/2026 that Jabukowski fails to explicitly teach “responsive to determining that the wireless power receiving device has been registered with a user account or registered with a SIM credential (either physical or e-SIM), determining that the wireless power receiving device has been removed from the container”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant states “The pending office action cites Jakubowski as showing or suggesting these features. (See pending office action, page 16, second paragraph.) But the only mention of a SIM in Jakubowski is that combined wireless charger-and- interrogator 200 can include a slot for a SIM card. (See Jakubowski, paragraph [0089].) Jakubowski does not show that the presence of a SIM card is determinative of whether device 322 is in container 200'. (See Jakubowski, FIG. 3B.)” however the applicant did not consider the full motivation to combine in page 16 of the Office Action dated 04/15/2026. Jakubowski in ¶[89] states “The combined wireless charger-and-interrogator can also include a slot for adding or removing another module such as a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card. SIM cards can be used for identifying subscriber services, executing programs, storing subscriber data, and so forth.” However, considering ¶[53] which teaches that electronic device 322 is in wireless communication with transponder 426, the SIM card teachings applicable to the wireless charger-and-interrogator would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to electronic device 322.
With respect to independent claim 12, applicant argues in page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/15/2026 that Jabukowski fails to explicitly teach “by the portable electronic device”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the applicant argues that electronic device 322 is not in wireless communication. However, Jakubowski in ¶[53] teaches that the electronic device 322 is the device in wireless communication.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The claim objections and the specification objection to the title have been withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments.
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 12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jakubowski (USPGPN 20170110903; as identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the European Search Opinion).
With respect to claim 12, Jakubowski teaches a portable electronic device (Fig. 3B, electronic device 322).
Jakubowski teaches a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to perform operations (¶[22], “... controller includes a memory to store computer instructions and a processor in communication with the memory. The processor, responsive to executing the computer instructions, performs operations ...”).
Jakubowski teaches comprising, by the portable electronic device (¶[53] teaches that the electronic device 322 is the device in wireless communication).
Jakubowski teaches detecting a wireless communication signal; in response to detecting the wireless communication signal, determining whether the portable electronic device is enclosed within a container (¶[22, 34], wireless communications between the charger and the device to determine proximity and as seen in Fig. 3B to determine if the device is enclosed in the container).
Jakubowski teaches in response to determining that the portable electronic device is enclosed within the container, wirelessly receiving power to charge a battery of the portable electronic device (¶[33], the battery of the electronic device is charged after determining proximity to the charging coils while within the container 200’).
With respect to claim 15, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein the container comprises a non-electrically conductive wall and wherein the portable electronic device is positioned adjacent the non-electrically conductive wall (It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the container is made of non-conductive material otherwise the wireless charging method would not work properly).
With respect to claim 18, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein the operations further comprise, in response to detecting the wireless communication signal, determining whether the wireless communication signal is from a charger configured to perform in-box charging of the portable electronic device (¶[22, 34], the device determines that the charger is proximate for charging the device while it is in the container 200’ as seen in Fig. 3B in which one of ordinary skill understands as part of routine communication the device determines the charger is compatible).
Jakubowski teaches in response to determining that the wireless communication signal is from the charger configured to perform in-box charging of the portable electronic device, wirelessly receiving the power to charge the battery of the portable electronic device (¶[33], the battery of the electronic device is charged after determining proximity to the charging coils while within the container 200’).
With respect to claim 19, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein the operations further comprise, in response to detecting the wireless communication signal, turning on at least one of an NFC, Bluetooth, WiFi or RFID communications circuit, in accordance with determining that the wireless communication signal is from the charger configured to perform in-box charging of the portable electronic device (¶[24], “... such as near-field communication devices and transponders, including radio frequency identification (RFID) transponders ...” in which one of ordinary skill understands RFID is a type of NFC. ¶[30], “... wireless communication links can include IEEE.802.11 compliant wireless links, such as Wifi®, Bluetooth®, etc.”).
With respect to claim 20, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein the operations further comprise, communicating with the charger to transmit at least one of a battery state-of-charge, in accordance with determining that the wireless communication signal is from the charger configured to perform in-box charging of the portable electronic device (¶[51], circuitry manages battery operation by controlling when the battery charges, thus one of ordinary skill understands that battery status is monitored to regulate charging behavior).
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 2-7, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubowski (USPGPN 20170110903) and further in view of Choi et al. (USPGPN 20160079802).
With respect to independent claim 6, Jakubowski teaches a wireless power transmitting device (Fig. 3B, wireless charger 302. 205 in Fig. 2 and 400 in Fig. 4).
Jakubowski teaches a surface (Fig. 3B, desktop 304) adapted to support a container (Fig. 3B, container 200’) containing a wireless power receiving device (Fig. 3B, electronic device 322).
Jakubowski teaches a wireless power transfer coil positioned to couple with a wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device when the container is placed on the surface (Figs. 2-3, transmit coil 206 is positioned to couple with power charging circuitry 224 of the electronic device 322 when the container 200’ is placed on the desktop 304).
Jakubowski teaches a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to perform operations (¶[22], “... controller includes a memory to store computer instructions and a processor in communication with the memory. The processor, responsive to executing the computer instructions, performs operations ...”).
Jakubowski teaches detect a presence of the wireless power receiving device when the container containing the wireless power receiving device is placed on the surface (¶[34], the charger sends out a signal to detect nearby devices, those devices respond with their information, and the charger receives that response. As shown in Fig. 3B, when the container containing the device is placed on the desktop/surface).
Jakubowski teaches determining whether the wireless power receiving device permits wireless power transfer while it is inside the container (¶[54], when the device responds to the charger’s signal, the charger detects that response and uses it to adjust how it sends power. As shown in Fig. 3B, while the electronic device is inside the container).
Jakubowski teaches while the wireless power receiving device remains inside the container, using the wireless power transfer coil, wirelessly transmit power to the wireless power receiving device through the container to charge a battery of the wireless power receiving device, in accordance with determining the wireless power receiving device permits wireless power transfer while it is inside the container (¶[33], the battery of the electronic device is charged. As shown in Fig. 3B, the battery is charged while the electronic device 322 is inside of the container 200’).
However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach responsive to determining that the battery of the wireless power receiving device has been charged to a threshold level, transmitting instructions to the wireless power receiving device to update an operating system.
Choi teaches responsive to determining that the battery of the wireless power receiving device has been charged to a threshold level, transmitting instructions to the wireless power receiving device to update an operating system (¶[63-64], when the battery capacity (e.g., level) is greater than a pre-determined threshold, the device is booted which is understood by one of ordinary skill to be an update to the OS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Choi’s software update method to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to update the device’s operating system when the charge threshold has been met. The advantage of this being the wireless control method charges the battery of the electronic device or updates software of the electronic device, without unpacking the electronic device (see ¶[09] of Choi).
With respect to claim 2, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Jakubowski teaches communicating with the wireless power receiving device using modulation of a wireless power transfer signal at the wireless power transfer coil (¶[34], “... the wireless transceiver 220 of the combined wireless charger-and-interrogator 200 can interrogate remote, unattached transponders 226a, 226b using the common transmit coil 206”).
With respect to claim 3, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Jakubowski teaches communicating with the wireless power receiving device using a wireless communication protocol and circuitry other than the wireless power transfer coil (Fig. 2, wireless transceiver 220 and wireless transponders 226a/b. ¶[34], “... the wireless transceiver 220 can communicate with remote transponders 226a and/or 226b by way of a separate coil and/or antenna in combination with or instead of the transmit coil 206”).
With respect to claim 4, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Jakubowski wherein the wireless communication protocol and circuitry are near-field communications (NFC) (¶[24], “... such as near-field communication devices and transponders, including radio frequency identification (RFID) transponders ...” in which one of ordinary skill understands RFID is a type of NFC).
With respect to claim 5, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, Jakubowski wherein the wireless communication protocol and circuitry are Bluetooth, WiFi, or RFID (¶[30], “... wireless communication links can include IEEE.802.11 compliant wireless links, such as Wifi®, Bluetooth®, etc.”).
With respect to claim 7, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein transmitting instructions to the wireless power receiving device to update an operating system comprises determining an existing version of operating system installed on the wireless power receiving device and determining that a version of the operating system newer than the existing version is available.
Choi teaches wherein transmitting instructions to the wireless power receiving device to update an operating system comprises determining an existing version of operating system installed on the wireless power receiving device and determining that a version of the operating system newer than the existing version is available (¶[86], the device’s current system version is compared with the latest version and if it older than the latest then it is updated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Choi’s software update method to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to update the device’s operating system when the charge threshold has been met. The advantage of this being the wireless control method charges the battery of the electronic device or updates software of the electronic device, without unpacking the electronic device (see ¶[09] of Choi).
With respect to claim 13, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein the operations further comprise wirelessly receiving data through the container (Fig. 3B, the device 322 receives data through the container 200’).
However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach in response to receiving the data, updating an operating system of the portable electronic device.
Choi teaches in response to receiving the data, updating an operating system of the portable electronic device (¶[86], the device’s current system version is compared with the latest version and if it older than the latest then it is updated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Choi’s software update method to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to update the device’s operating system when the charge threshold has been met. The advantage of this being the wireless control method charges the battery of the electronic device or updates software of the electronic device, without unpacking the electronic device (see ¶[09] of Choi).
With respect to claim 14, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 13. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein the wireless communication signal is received by a first antenna and wherein the data is received by a second antenna (Fig. 2, wireless transceiver 220 and wireless transponders 226a/b. ¶[34], “... the wireless transceiver 220 can communicate with remote transponders 226a and/or 226b by way of a separate coil and/or antenna in combination with or instead of the transmit coil 206”).
With respect to claim 17, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise, in response to detecting the wireless communication signal, transitioning from a power save mode to an active mode.
Choi teaches in response to detecting the wireless communication signal, transitioning from a power save mode to an active mode (¶[64], when the booting signal is received, the processor is waked up for a low power mode or sleep mode (e.g., to an active mode)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Choi’s software update method to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to update the device’s operating system when the charge threshold has been met. The advantage of this being the wireless control method charges the battery of the electronic device or updates software of the electronic device, without unpacking the electronic device (see ¶[09] of Choi).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubowski (USPGPN 20170110903).
With respect to independent claim 8, Jakubowski teaches a wireless power transmitting device (Fig. 3B, wireless charger 302. 205 in Fig. 2 and 400 in Fig. 4).
Jakubowski teaches a surface (Fig. 3B, desktop 304) adapted to support a container (Fig. 3B, container 200’) containing a wireless power receiving device (Fig. 3B, electronic device 322).
Jakubowski teaches a wireless power transfer coil positioned to couple with a wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device when the container is placed on the surface (Figs. 2-3, transmit coil 206 is positioned to couple with power charging circuitry 224 of the electronic device 322 when the container 200’ is placed on the desktop 304).
Jakubowski teaches a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to perform operations (¶[22], “... controller includes a memory to store computer instructions and a processor in communication with the memory. The processor, responsive to executing the computer instructions, performs operations ...”).
Jakubowski teaches detect a presence of the wireless power receiving device when the container containing the wireless power receiving device is placed on the surface (¶[34], the charger sends out a signal to detect nearby devices, those devices respond with their information, and the charger receives that response. As shown in Fig. 3B, when the container containing the device is placed on the desktop/surface).
Jakubowski teaches determining whether the wireless power receiving device permits wireless power transfer while it is inside the container (¶[54], when the device responds to the charger’s signal, the charger detects that response and uses it to adjust how it sends power. As shown in Fig. 3B, while the electronic device is inside the container).
Jakubowski teaches using the wireless power transfer coil, wirelessly transmit power to the wireless power receiving device through the container to charge a battery of the wireless power receiving device, in accordance with determining the wireless power receiving device permits wireless power transfer while it is inside the container (¶[33], the battery of the electronic device is charged. As shown in Fig. 3B, the battery is charged while the electronic device 322 is inside of the container 200’).
Jakubowski teaches, considering MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Reversal of Parts, determining that the wireless power receiving device has been registered with a user account or registered with a SIM credential (either physical or e-SIM) (¶[89], considering Reversal of Parts, the device may be registered with a SIM).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that the wireless power receiving device has been removed from the container, since this determination constitutes a matter of design choice driven by registration of the device with a SIM by first having to remove it from the package. The advantage of this being that it improves accessibility and ease of handling.
MPEP 2144.04 VI. A. Reversal 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubowski and Choi, and further in view of Partovi (USPGPN 20130119929).
With respect to claim 9, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise determining whether a temperature of the wireless power receiving device exceeds an inbox charging threshold and discontinuing wirelessly transmitting power to the wireless power receiving device responsive to determining the temperature exceeds the inbox charging threshold.
Partovi teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining whether a temperature of the wireless power receiving device exceeds an inbox charging threshold and discontinuing wirelessly transmitting power to the wireless power receiving device responsive to determining the temperature exceeds the inbox charging threshold (¶[97], “… it is therefore desirable to monitor the cell, wireless power receiver coil or other temperature and to take appropriate action, such as to terminate charging or lower charging current, etc. if a certain maximum temperature is exceeded.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Partovi’s temperature detection to Jakubowski’s charging system. The advantage of this being Li-Ion batteries need to be charged below a certain temperature for safety reasons (see ¶[97] of Partovi) thus preventing fires.
With respect to claim 10, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, Jakubowski teaches wherein detecting a presence of the wireless power receiving device when the container containing the wireless power receiving device is placed on the surface (¶[34], the charger sends out a signal to detect nearby devices, those devices respond with their information, and the charger receives that response. As shown in Fig. 3B, when the container containing the device is placed on the desktop/surface).
However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein the wireless power transmitting device further comprises a plurality of wireless power transfer coils and comprises detecting coupling between a particular wireless power transfer coil of the plurality of wireless power transfer coils of the wireless power transmitting device with the wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device, selecting the particular wireless power transfer coil of the plurality of wireless power transfer coils, and using the selected wireless power transmit coil to wirelessly transmit power to the wireless power receiving device.
Partovi teaches wherein the wireless power transmitting device further comprises a plurality of wireless power transfer coils and comprises detecting coupling between a particular wireless power transfer coil of the plurality of wireless power transfer coils of the wireless power transmitting device with the wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device, selecting the particular wireless power transfer coil of the plurality of wireless power transfer coils, and using the selected wireless power transmit coil to wirelessly transmit power to the wireless power receiving device (Figs. 39-40, ¶[72], describe a system with multiple transmitter coils that detect when a receiver draws power and keep transmitting, thus one of ordinary skill understands the coupled coil is used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Partovi’s multi-coil system to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to select the coupled coil from the multiple coils to charge the device. The advantage of this being the surface area does not require specific alignment (see ¶[4] of Partovi) thus easing placement configuration for wireless charging purposes.
With respect to claim 11, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6. However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein the wireless power transmitting device further comprises a ferrite material abutting the wireless power transfer coil; and wherein the ferrite material is shaped to optimize transmission of flux generated by the wireless power transfer coil, towards the wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device.
Partovi teaches wherein the wireless power transmitting device further comprises a ferrite material abutting the wireless power transfer coil; and wherein the ferrite material is shaped to optimize transmission of flux generated by the wireless power transfer coil, towards the wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device (Fig. 20, ¶[25], “ferrite magnetic material or switching layer above the coil to guide and shield the flux”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Partovi’s flux improved by ferrite to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to improve wireless charging through a wall of the container. The advantage being using the ferrite to shield and guide the flux (see ¶[25] of Partovi).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubowski, and further in view of Stenmark (USPGPN 20050009563).
With respect to claim 16, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. Further, Jakubowski teaches detecting the wireless communication signal and establish communications with a wireless power transmitter via a wireless power receiving coil (¶[34], “... the wireless transceiver 220 of the combined wireless charger-and-interrogator 200 can interrogate remote, unattached transponders 226a, 226b using the common transmit coil 206”).
However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach determining whether the portable electronic device is unregistered with a user account or is not registered with SIM.
Stenmark teaches determining whether the portable electronic device is unregistered with a user account or is not registered with SIM (¶[50], the device checks to see if a SIM is present or not thus it is understood by one of ordinary skill it checks to see if the device is registered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Stenmark’s SIM card registration method to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to establish communications with a wireless power transmitted via a wireless power receiving coil in response to determining that the electronic device is unregistered or is not registered with the SIM. The advantage to this being that the device can determine if it has not been registered to a user (see ¶[10] of Stenmark).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubowski and further in view of Partovi (USPGPN 20130119929).
With respect to claim 21, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise determining whether a temperature of the wireless power receiving device exceeds an inbox charging threshold and discontinuing wirelessly transmitting power to the wireless power receiving device responsive to determining the temperature exceeds the inbox charging threshold.
Partovi teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining whether a temperature of the wireless power receiving device exceeds an inbox charging threshold and discontinuing wirelessly transmitting power to the wireless power receiving device responsive to determining the temperature exceeds the inbox charging threshold (¶[97], “… it is therefore desirable to monitor the cell, wireless power receiver coil or other temperature and to take appropriate action, such as to terminate charging or lower charging current, etc. if a certain maximum temperature is exceeded.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Partovi’s temperature detection to Jakubowski’s charging system. The advantage of this being Li-Ion batteries need to be charged below a certain temperature for safety reasons (see ¶[97] of Partovi) thus preventing fires.
With respect to claim 22, Jakubowski teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. However, Jakubowski fails to explicitly teach wherein the wireless power transmitting device further comprises a ferrite material abutting the wireless power transfer coil; and wherein the ferrite material is shaped to optimize transmission of flux generated by the wireless power transfer coil, towards the wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device.
Partovi teaches wherein the wireless power transmitting device further comprises a ferrite material abutting the wireless power transfer coil; and wherein the ferrite material is shaped to optimize transmission of flux generated by the wireless power transfer coil, towards the wireless power receiving coil of the wireless power receiving device (Fig. 20, ¶[25], “ferrite magnetic material or switching layer above the coil to guide and shield the flux”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Partovi’s flux improved by ferrite to Jakubowski’s charging system in order to improve wireless charging through a wall of the container. The advantage being using the ferrite to shield and guide the flux (see ¶[25] of Partovi).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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