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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on May 12, 2026 in response to the Office action dated February 13, 2026 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 are amended. Claim 14 is newly added. Claims 1-14 are pending and under examination in this Office action.
Response to Amendment
The rejection to claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
Examiner’s Notes
In regard to the amended feature of claims 1 and 12: “the plurality of resonant circuits are connected in parallel with each other to the power source”, it indicates that the plurality of resonant circuits are connected in parallel to each other, and the plurality of resonant circuits are connected to the power source. Note that prior to the amendment, the claim language quires that the plurality of resonance circuits are connected in parallel to the power source, which is no longer valid in view of the claim amendment. Hence, the amendment is considered having changed the scope of the claim. The art rejection is maintained but modified to address the amendment.
In regard to the term “matched”, by definition being matched may mean (1) one being equal or resemble to another, (2) one being a counter part of the other; or (3) more broadly, one being suitable to another. According to FIG.3, it appears that a matched direction refers to the same direction. Further in the specification [0108] the phase of the pulsed magnetic fluxes being matched such that the different can be decreases; and in [0121] the maximum points of change rate being matched such that the difference is decreased. These further disclosure is considered applicable to the term “matched” when referring to the directions of the magnetic fluxes.
Under this interpretation, Ilmoniemi is considered providing sufficient and appropriate teaching for the direction to be matched as being the same ([0074]: FIG.8: it is possible to fire multiple pulses from the same position and orientation of the casing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilmoniemi et al., US 2014/0457935 A1, hereinafter Ilmoniemi, in view of Simon et al., US 2013/0304159 A1, hereinafter Simon.
Claim 1. Ilmoniemi teaches in FIGS.1-8 a transcranial magnetic stimulator (10) ([0006]; and [0027]: FIG.1 shows an example of a multichannel Transcranial Magnetic stimulation (mTMS) coil device 10) comprising:
a plurality of resonant circuits ([0122]: coil winding stand manes not only for a coil but also for other similar entities, e.g., antenna, or resonant circuit. A coil winding may also have various components/circuit elements in series/parallel) including a plurality of magnetic stimulation coils (40, 42) ([0007]: a first coil winding having a first power input line, a second coil winding having a second power line; [0008]: more than 2, for example 3, 4, 5 or more coil windings can be combined and overlapped; and [0028]: within the casting 14 of the mTMS coil device 10 are at least two coil windings) for stimulating a living body by applying variable magnetic fields to an inside of the living body ([0066]: the mTMS coil devices described herein can be used for stimulating a target location on or within the brain of a subject),
the plurality of resonant circuits applying respective pulse currents to the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils to generate the variable magnetic fields ([0007]: a first coil winding have a first power input line, a second coil winding having a second power input line; [0010]: controlling a first current through the first power line to generate a first, primary magnetic field…modifying the position, direction and/or orientation of the primary magnetic field by separately controlling a second current through the second power line to generate a second, secondary magnetic field; [0035]: by separately controlling each of the coil windings it is possible to have a virtually continuous range of resultant electric fields between the predetermined directions and orientations of each of the involved coil windings; and [0067]: Each coil may have its own electronics and capacitor(s)); and
a power source that supplies an electric power to the plurality of resonant circuits ([0089]: each coil winding can have a power input line), wherein
the plurality of resonant circuits are connected to the power source, and therefore, the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are also connected to the power source ([0089]: each coil winding can have a power input line; and [0122]: coil winding stand manes not only for a coil but also for other similar entities, e.g., antenna, or resonant circuit. A coil winding may also have various components/circuit elements in series/parallel), and
the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are formed in approximately a same shape ([0033]: the geometry of each coil will main essentially the same; and [0037]: FIGS. 5 and 6, each of the coil windings has essentially the same geometry), and adjacently disposed (FIGS.2-8 shows various configuration of the plurality of coils that are adjacent to each other; [0007]: the first and second coil windings are at least partially overlapping) such that directions of magnetic fluxes generated by the pulse currents are matched ([0010]: modifying the position, direction and/or orientation of the primary magnetic field by adjusting the position and/or orientation of the second coil winding with respect to the first coil winding; and [0074]: FIG.8: it is possible to fire multiple pulses from the same position and orientation of the casing).
Ilmoniemi does not teach that the plurality of resonant circuits are connected in parallel with each other.
However, in an analogous TMS configuration field of endeavor, Simon teach that the plurality of resonant circuits are connected in parallel to each other, therefore the magnetic stimulation coils are also connected in parallel to each other ([0055]: two or more distinct coils, each of which is connected in series or in parallel to the impulse generator 310; and [0097]: if they are connected to the impulse generator in parallel, then the design is for current to pass in the same direction through both coils).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of resonant circuits that each comprises the coil and the power source of Ilmoniemi employ such a feature of them being connected in parallel as taught in Simon for the advantage of adjusting the direction of the current passing through the coil wire, hence the direction of the resultant electric field, as suggested in Simon, [0097].
Claim 2. Ilmoniemi further teaches that
each of the plurality of resonant circuits includes a switching element that controls an application timing of the pulse current to the magnetic stimulation coil ([0067]: Each coil may have its own electronics and capacitor(s)…The connections to desired coils can be changed either manually or electronically, e.g., with switches).
Claim 3. Ilmoniemi further teaches that
the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are disposed to be stacked such that axial centers of the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are approximately matched ([0043]: one or more identical coil windings fully overlapped with each other; [0054]: the ideal method of overlapping of the coil windings is to arrange their center points so that they are substantially overlapping; [0055]: the coil windings are stacked with one coil winding on top of the other coil winding; and FIG.8).
Clam 4. Ilmoniemi further teaches
that one of the magnetic stimulation coils is an upper coil, and another is a lower coil, and the upper coil and the lower coil are disposed to be stacked such that a bottom surface of the upper coil is overlapped with an upper surface of the lower coil in a cross-sectional view of at least a part of the upper coil and the lower coil ([0043]: one or more identical coil windings fully overlapped with each other; [0055]: As seen in the example of FIG.8, the first and second coil windings only partially overlap within the casing 81a; and FIG.8 illustrates a cross-sectional view, in which the two coils are stacked and the bottom surface of the upper coil overlaps at least partially with the top surface of the bottom coil).
Claim 6. Ilmoniemi further teaches that each of the plurality of resonant circuits includes
a resonant capacitor that accumulates an electric charge supplied from the power source ([0029]: the standard coil winding 20 has an input line 24 and a return line 26. The input line 24 is for introducing a current to the coil winding 20. The return line 26 is for returning current, e.g., to a power storage medium, e.g. a capacitor or capacitor bank).
Ilmoniemi does not teach a second switching element is disposed between the resonant capacitor and the power source, and the second switching element blocks a connection between the resonant capacitor and the power source during discharge of the resonant capacitor to suppress a leakage current to the power source.
However, in an analogous TMS configuration field of endeavor, Simon teach
a second switching element is disposed between the resonant capacitor and the power source, and the second switching element blocks a connection between the resonant capacitor and the power source during discharge of the resonant capacitor to suppress a leakage current to the power source ([0019]: a transformer charges a capacitor in the impulse generator, which also contains circuit elements that limit the effect of undesirable electrical transients. Charging of the capacitor is under the control of a control unit, which accepts information such as the capacitor voltage, power and other parameters set by the suer, as well as from various safety interlocks within the equipment that ensure proper operation, and the capacitor is then discharged through the coil via an electronic switch (e.g., a controlled rectifier) when the user wishes to apply the stimulus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stimulator of Ilmoniemi employ such a feature of comprising a second switching element is disposed between the resonant capacitor and the power source, and the second switching element blocks a connection between the resonant capacitor and the power source during discharge of the resonant capacitor to suppress a leakage current to the power source as taught in Simon for the advantage of controlling the charging/discharging rate and the impulse rate for the stimulator, as suggested in Simon, [0019].
Claim 14. Ilmoniemi further teaches that
the magnetic fluxes generated by the respective magnetic stimulation coils mutually overlap and merge to increase a resultant magnetic flux intensity ([0007]: the first and second coil windings are at least partially overlapping; [0043]: one or more identical coil windings fully overlapped with each other; [0076]: the at least two coil windings can be controlled such that the at least two coil windings produce a magnetic field at different frequencies…such an example could be used for increasing the rate of pulses by staggering two fully or partially overlapped coils; [0123]: the general advantage is better coupling with the tissue for individual coils (leading to enhanced signal-to-noise ratio).
To increase the rate of pulses or to enhance the SNR is considered resulting in an increases of the intensities.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilmoniemi et al., US 2014/0457935 A1, hereinafter Ilmoniemi, in view of Simon et al., US 2013/0304159 A1, hereinafter Simon, further in view of Tszin et al., RU2427057 C2, hereinafter Tszin.
Claim 5. Ilmoniemi and Simon combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Ilmoniemi nor Simon teaches that respective wound wires of the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are mutually twisted, and form a multicore wire.
However, in an analogous coil winding wire-based magnetic field generator configuration field of endeavor, Tszin teaches that
respective wound wires of the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are mutually twisted, and form a multicore wire (Claim 3: the magnetic energy generator characterized in that said induction coil can be a stranded enameled wire coated with insulation, or two or four stranded enameled wires coated with insulation, wound in parallel on the frame, said coil being wound on the frame, has one or N turns, and said coil wound on the frame can be made of many multicore wires coated with insulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stimulator of Ilmoniemi and Simon combined employ such a feature of “respective wound wires of the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are mutually twisted, and form a multicore wire” as taught in Tszin as an alternative configuration of the wire used for a magnetic energy generator that has a simpler design, ease of use and assembly, easy manufacture and lower cost, better uniformity and higher degree of compliance with standards of the products, as suggested in Tszin, Abstract. Multicore twisted wire carries the advantage that is well-known in the field of wire industry for it being capable of reducing electromagnet interference.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilmoniemi et al., US 2014/0457935 A1, hereinafter Ilmoniemi, in view of Simon et al., US 2013/0304159 A1, hereinafter Simon, further in view of Nishizawa et al., JP2012019504A, hereinafter Nishizawa.
Claim 7. Ilmoniemi and Simon combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Ilmoniemi further teaches that the resonant circuit includes
a resonant capacitor that accumulates an electric charge supplied from the power source ([0029]: the standard coil winding 20 has an input line 24 and a return line 26. The input line 24 is for introducing a current to the coil winding 20. The return line 26 is for returning current, e.g., to a power storage medium, e.g. a capacitor or capacitor bank).
Simon also teaches the same feature ([0019]: a transformer charges a capacitor in the impulse generator, which also contains circuit elements that limit the effect of undesirable electrical transients. Charging of the capacitor is under the control of a control unit, which accepts information such as the capacitor voltage, power and other parameters set by the suer, as well as from various safety interlocks within the equipment that ensure proper operation, and the capacitor is then discharged through the coil via an electronic switch (e.g., a controlled rectifier) when the user wishes to apply the stimulus).
Neither Ilmoniemi nor Simon teaches the claimed feature associated with the resonant impedance.
However, in an analogous resonance circuitry configuration field of endeavor, Nishizawa teaches
a resonant impedance circuit is interposed between the resonant capacitor and the power source, and the resonant impedance circuit acts as a resistance component higher than a resistive component in non-resonance by resonating at a resonant frequency of the resonant circuit to suppress a leakage current to the power source ([0015]: the common mode coil 1 with a resonant circuit has a single-phase main circuit wirings wound around a magnetic core 8 in the same phase. In addition, a resonance wiring 2 is wound in phase with the main circuit wiring and a resonance capacitor 3 is attached to both end of the resonance wiring 2; [0016]: In such a common mode coil 1 with a resonant circuit, it is possible to have a large impedance at a frequency that resonates with the inductance value of the resonant wiring 2 and the capacitance value of the resonant capacitor 3, relative to the common mode current flowing in phase through the single-phase main circuit wirings ; and [0017]: the common mode coil with resonant circuit is wound around the magnetic core not only around the main circuit wiring but also around the resonance wiring, and a resonant capacitor is attached (forming a resonant circuit unit), thereby configuring the common mode coil to have a resonant impedance for the common mode current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stimulator of Ilmoniemi and Simon combined employ such a feature of comprising a resonant impedance circuit and its associated characteristics as taught in Nishizawa for the well-known advantage of using a resonance impedance circuit for the purpose of creating a circuit that can effectively transfer electrical energy at a specific frequency while allowing minimal energy loss to ensure high performance and efficiency in the frequency range to fit the utility of the circuity designed for a particular application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilmoniemi et al., US 2014/0457935 A1, hereinafter Ilmoniemi, in view of Simon et al., US 2013/0304159 A1, hereinafter Simon, further in view of Rohrbeck et al., US 5,586,017, hereinafter Rohrbeck.
Claim 8. Ilmoniemi and Simon combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Ilmoniemi nor Simon teaches that any or all of the plurality of resonant circuits include a synchronization adjustment circuit for synchronizing the resonant frequency of each of the resonant circuits.
However, in an analogous resonance circuitry configuration field of endeavor, Rohrbeck teaches that
any or all of the plurality of resonant circuits include a synchronization adjustment circuit for synchronizing the resonant frequency of each of the resonant circuits (Col. 2, lines 26-28: the parallel resonant circuit and the series resonant circuit are both tuned to the same resonance frequency; Col.8, ll.42-45: in order to turn the secondary windings L21 and L22 to the parallel resonance frequency given by the equation (7), therefore, an additional parallel resonant circuit with an inductance L3 and a capacitor C3 is provided; and Col.9, ll.37-40: instead of using an additional parallel resonant circuit, the running to be operating frequency can also be realized by means of a ferrite member 3 of small dimensions) – the parallel resonant circuit is considered the “synchronization adjustment circuit” as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stimulator of Ilmoniemi and Simon combined employ such a feature of having any or all of the plurality of resonant circuits include a synchronization adjustment circuit for synchronizing the resonant frequency of each of the resonant circuits as taught in Rohrbeck for the well-known advantage of having a synchronized frequency so to minimize impedance among the resonant circuits hence to maximize the current flow.
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilmoniemi et al., US 2014/0457935 A1, hereinafter Ilmoniemi, in view of Simon et al., US 2013/0304159 A1, hereinafter Simon, further in view of Nakagawa et al., JP2000121711A, hereinafter Nakagawa.
Claim 9. Ilmoniemi and Simon combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Ilmoniemi teaches that the impulses are transferred to different resonant circuits at the same time ([0043]: to control the pulses separately, either at different times and/or simultaneously; [0040]: if current is passed through both coils simultaneously, the resultant electric field will be the sum of both individual electric field).
Neither Ilmoniemi nor Simon teaches a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits.
However, in an analogous resonance circuitry configuration field of endeavor, Nakagawa teaches
a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits ([0078]: a small-capacity capacitor 74 and resistor 75 constitute a phase-shift circuit, which matches the phase of the drive signals at the bases of both transistors 71 and 72 with the phase of the voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stimulator of Ilmoniemi and Simon combined employ such a feature of a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits as taught in Nakagawa for the well-known advantage of having the phases of the resonant circuits matched so to ensure that the circuit operates efficiently and effectively by maximizing the electrical energy transfer.
Claim 10. Ilmoniemi, Simon and Nakagawa combined teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
As applied to claim 9, Ilmoniemi teaches that the impulses are transferred to different resonant circuits at the same time ([0043]: to control the pulses separately, either at different times and/or simultaneously; [0040]: if current is passed through both coils simultaneously, the resultant electric field will be the sum of both individual electric field).
Nakagawa teaches a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits ([0078]: a small-capacity capacitor 74 and resistor 75 constitute a phase-shift circuit, which matches the phase of the drive signals at the bases of both transistors 71 and 72 with the phase of the voltage).
To synchronize the timing of impulse is to match the phases or match the generation timing.
Hence, when Ilmoniemi, Simon and Nakagawa are combined, it teaches that the phase adjustment circuit is configured to match the phases of the resonant currents by performing an adjustment so as to match generation timings of the respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits.
Claim 12. Ilmoniemi teaches in FIGS.1-8 a transcranial magnetic stimulator (10) ([0006]; and [0027]: FIG.1 shows an example of a multichannel Transcranial Magnetic stimulation (mTMS) coil device 10) comprising:
a plurality of resonant circuits ([0122]: coil winding stand manes not only for a coil but also for other similar entities, e.g., antenna, or resonant circuit. A coil winding may also have various components/circuit elements in series/parallel) including a plurality of magnetic stimulation coils (40, 42) ([0007]: a first coil winding having a first power input line, a second coil winding having a second power line; [0008]: more than 2, for example 3, 4, 5 or more coil windings can be combined and overlapped; and [0028]: within the casting 14 of the mTMS coil device 10 are at least two coil windings) for stimulating a living body by applying variable magnetic fields to an inside of the living body ([0066]: the mTMS coil devices described herein can be used for stimulating a target location on or within the brain of a subject),
the plurality of resonant circuits applying respective pulse currents to the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils to generate the variable magnetic fields ([0007]: a first coil winding have a first power input line, a second coil winding having a second power input line; [0010]: controlling a first current through the first power line to generate a first, primary magnetic field…modifying the position, direction and/or orientation of the primary magnetic field by separately controlling a second current through the second power line to generate a second, secondary magnetic field; [0035]: by separately controlling each of the coil windings it is possible to have a virtually continuous range of resultant electric fields between the predetermined directions and orientations of each of the involved coil windings; and [0067]: Each coil may have its own electronics and capacitor(s)); and
a power source that supplies an electric power to the plurality of resonant circuits ([0089]: each coil winding can have a power input line), wherein
the plurality of resonant circuits are connected to the power source, and therefore, the plurality of magnetic stimulation coils are also connected to the power source ([0089]: each coil winding can have a power input line; and [0122]: coil winding stand manes not only for a coil but also for other similar entities, e.g., antenna, or resonant circuit. A coil winding may also have various components/circuit elements in series/parallel).
Ilmoniemi does not teach that the plurality of resonant circuits are connected in parallel with each other.
However, in an analogous TMS configuration field of endeavor, Simon teach that the resonant circuit is connected to the power source in parallel, therefore the magnetic stimulation coil is also connected to the power source in parallel ([0055]: two or more distinct coils, each of which is connected in series or in parallel to the impulse generator 310; and [0097]: if they are connected to the impulse generator in parallel, then the design is for current to pass in the same direction through both coils).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of resonant circuits that each comprises the coil and the power source of Ilmoniemi employ such a feature of them being connected in parallel with each other as taught in Simon for the advantage of adjusting the direction of the current passing through the coil wire, hence the direction of the resultant electric field, as suggested in Simon, [0097].
Ilmoniemi teaches that the impulses are transferred to different resonant circuits at the same time ([0043]: to control the pulses separately, either at different times and/or simultaneously; [0040]: if current is passed through both coils simultaneously, the resultant electric field will be the sum of both individual electric field).
Neither Ilmoniemi nor Simon teaches a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits.
However, in an analogous resonance circuitry configuration field of endeavor, Nakagawa teaches
a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits ([0078]: a small-capacity capacitor 74 and resistor 75 constitute a phase-shift circuit, which matches the phase of the drive signals at the bases of both transistors 71 and 72 with the phase of the voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stimulator of Ilmoniemi and Simon combined employ such a feature of a phase adjustment circuit for matching phases of respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits as taught in Nakagawa for the well-known advantage of having the phases of the resonant circuits matched so to ensure that the circuit operates efficiently and effectively by maximizing the electrical energy transfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations recited in claims 11 and 13 in regard to the features of “the phase adjustment circuit is configured to match the phases of the resonant currents by performing an adjustment so as to match maximum points of change rates of the respective resonant currents generated in the plurality of resonant circuits", in combination with the other claimed elements, is/are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Ilmoniemi vs. Claim 1-
Applicant asserted that Ilmoniemi does not teach matching flux directions to overlap and merge the generated fluxes to increase resultant intensity. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, claim 1 merely recites that the directions are matched, without further defining how they are matched and how the matched directions would result in an increase of the flux intensity. As considered in the section of Examiner’s Notes, according to the drawing and the disclosure, being matched is interpreted as being the same, and Ilmoniemi is considered providing sufficient and appropriate teaching for the directions of the fluxes to be the same.
Applicant asserted that he present invention matches flux directions through parallel resonant circuits for achieving a reduction of the current and voltage applied to each individual coil. Since there is no further recitation in regard to how the parallel circuitry leads to the reduction of the current and voltage, and this feature is not reflected in the claim anyway, as Simon teaches that the plurality of resonant circuits are connected in parallel with each other, such a reduction of the current and voltage is considered merely a natural result of such a parallel configuration and Ilmoniemi and Simon combined are considered providing sufficient teaching for this feature.
Applicant asserted that Simon does not teach that multiple resonant circuits are connected in parallel to the power supply. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as considered in the Examiner’s Notes, the amended claim language requires that the multiple resonant circuits to be connected in parallel with each other, and the multiple resonant circuits are connected to the power source. However, it does not require that the multiple resonant circuits are connected to the power source in parallel. After reconsideration, Simon remains being considered providing appropriate and sufficient teaching to the amended feature of “the plurality of resonant circuits being connected in parallel with each other to the power source”.
Applicant further asserted that Nakagawa does not teach matching the phases between multiple circuits in claim 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Nakagawa teaches in [00789] that the phase of the drive signals are matched (i.e., “matching generation timings” as recited in the claim) via a phase shift (i.e., “the phase adjustment circuit performs an adjustment” as recited in the claim). This maps on the recited limitation of “performing an adjustment so as to match generation timing of the respective resonant currents”. Note that Ilmoniemi already teaches that the phases of the resonant currents are matched ([0043] and [0040]) and Nakagawa is only relied upon for the teaching that such a matching current is achieved by performing a phase shift of the generation timing. Ilmoniemi, Simon and Nakagawa combined hence is considered providing sufficient and appropriate teaching to claim 10.
The newly added claim 14 is rejected under Ilmoniemi and Simon combined.
Based on the above considerations, claims 1-10, 12 and 14 are rejected. Claims 11 and 13 remain allowable.
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 YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights