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 IDSes filed 3/28/23, 7/8/24 and 9/19/24 have all been considered and placed of record. The three (3) initialed copies are attached herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in figures 4-8 is blurry and light. 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.
Specification
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. Claim language (i.e. means and comprising) should be removed from the title.
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected. For example, the degree symbol
°
in the denominator of respective equations in claims 4-6 and 11 and in the specification is difficult to decipher.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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 following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the inductance deviation (ID1)” (line 2), “the following equation 1” (lines 2-3) and “the inductance” (line 6).
Re claim 2, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the inductance deviation (ID2)” (lines 1-2) and “the following equation 2” (line 2). The term “a temperature of 25
°
C
should be “the temperature…” because said temperature has been mentioned in claim 1.
Re claim 3, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the inductance deviation (ID3)” (lines 1-2) and “the following equation 3” (line 2). The term “a temperature of 25
°
C
” should be “the temperature…” because said temperature has been mentioned in claim 1.
Re claim 4, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the inductance charge rate (ΔID)” (lines 1-2) and “the following equation 4” (line 2). The term “a temperature of 25
°
C
” should be “the temperature…” because said temperature has been mentioned in claim 1.
Re claim 5, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the first magnetic permeability change rate (ΔP1)” (line 2), “the following equation 6” (line 3) and “the magnetic permeability” (line 6).
Re claim 6, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the second magnetic permeability change rate (ΔP2)” (lines 1-2). The term “a temperature of 20
°
C
” should be “the temperature…” because said temperature has been mentioned in claim 5.
Re claims 7 and 8, they are indefinite for depending directly or indirectly on indefinite claims.
Re claim 9, the term “the total weight” (line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claim 10, the term “the group” (line 3) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Re claim 11, the following terms lack proper antecedent basis: “the inductance deviation (ID1)” (line 4), “the following equation 1” (lines 4-5), “the first magnetic permeability change rate (ΔP1)” (line 6), “the following equation 6” (lines 6-7), “the inductance” (line 11) and “the magnetic permeability” (third line from bottom). In addition, the preamble “a transportation means” is confusing (normally the preamble is where the statutory class would represent one of apparatus, method, composition and article of manufacture). It is suggested the preamble should be “an electric vehicle comprising…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The art made of record fails to disclose or suggest a wireless charging device having an inductance deviation satisfied at least the claimed equations in claims 1 and 11; and having the magnetic permeability change rate satisfied at least the claimed equations in claims 5 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art made of record exemplified the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights