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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/04/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 set forth in the amendment submitted 2/04/2026 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the drawing set forth in the Final Office cation mailed on 11/05/2025 has been withdrawn because of the explanation in the response/remarks page 8-10 filed on 2/04/2026.
5. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 10-12, filed 2/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 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 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 11-12, of the remarks, filed on 2/04/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 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, that “First, regarding the "interaction value" rejection, the Examiner stated that "it is not clear what interaction value is" and questioned whether "the interaction value is the characteristics or parameter of the battery or any other value" and whether "this is the current value or any other value." The Examiner suggested that Applicant "explain the limitation interaction value as disclosed in the present application specification paragraph 44 (as filed)."
In accordance with the Examiner's suggestion, claims 1, 12, and 16 have been amended to specify that "the interaction value comprises a change in at least one of a field oscillation magnitude of the alternating magnetic field or a frequency of the alternating magnetic field sensed by the inductive sensor." This amendment is directly supported by paragraph [0044] of the specification, which states: "A change in the alternating magnetic includes a field oscillation magnitude that is detectable with an amplitude modulation detector, while a frequency change is detectable with a frequency discriminator circuit. Either the magnitude change, or the frequency change define an interaction between the inductive sensor and a proximate item to be sensed."
Second, regarding the "obverse surface and reverse surface" rejection, the Examiner noted that "it is not clear where the battery is placed in the battery enclosure" and identified an apparent inconsistency in the claim language. The claims as previously presented recited "the battery enclosure comprises outer surfaces" but the claims are directed to detecting battery presence in a "device enclosure." The term "battery enclosure" appears to have been a typographical error (Remarks-Page 11).
………
Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-20, as amended, fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection (Remarks-Page 12).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 10-12 (stated above), filed 2/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 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 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Because applicant has explained and amended the claims and added the limitation which makes some of the claim limitation clear and some of the claim limitation is still unclear.
However, claim limitation, “sampling,…and classifying…..” is still not clear. It is not what structure is used to do these method steps and how. The limitation, “obverse surface and reverse surface” is clear now. However, it is not clear what is the purpose of obverse surface and reverse surface and how it is related with the method steps. Therefore, it looks like some of the method steps are missing to properly understand the method for detecting the battery presence which makes the claims unclear.
For expedite prosecution examiner suggests to include the method steps [302, 304, 306] as disclosed in Figure 3 in the Present application and also to make the method steps clear as disclosed in Paragraph 38-40 of the present application PGPUB No. US 20250044475 A1 to recite some structure of the method steps.
For expedite prosecution Applicant is invited to call to discuss the present rejection also if any further clarification needed and to discuss any possible amendment to overcome the references to make the claims allowable.
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 1-20 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.
It appears that claims 1-20 should have been rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Referring to claim 1, it appears that the claim has recited insufficient structure for performing the recited function of having "two states," namely, " sampling a galvanized current response in an alternating magnetic field of an inductive sensor, and classifying the device battery enclosure as one of a battery-containing device enclosure and a battery-lacking device enclosure " Paragraphs 37-39 of the specification teach that a conveyor 202 to convey devices 204 (device 204-1, device 204-2) to be tested. The system 200 may include a flipper 206, a camera 210 to support flipper 206, a presence detector 212, an inductive sensor 214, a measurement zone 222, an actuator 216, an inspection path 218, a non-inspection path 220, and a controller 208 corresponding to sampling and classifying stage, however, claim 1 only includes a an inductive sensor and a device enclosure containing battery. Consequently, the claim does not appear to recite the requisite structure for performing the claimed function. As such, the boundaries of the language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited steps do not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., sampling and classifying, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the instrument. Thus, one of ordinary skill would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 1 recites, “sampling a galvanized current response in an alternating magnetic field of an inductive sensor to derive an interaction value.” However, claim does not recite how the galvanized current response is received and what structure is used to sample the current response Therefore, the limitation is not clear.
Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 12 and 16 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, because of the same reason as stated above.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 16.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the battery enclosure comprises outer surfaces comprising an obverse surface and a reverse surface, wherein there is a greater amount of metal between the reverse surface and the battery as compared to an amount of metal between the obverse surface and the battery, and wherein the obverse surface faces the inductive sensor”. However, it is not clear what is the purpose of obverse surface and reverse surface for detecting the battery presence and how the limitation is related with detection of battery presence. Therefore, it looks like some of the method steps are missing to properly understand the method for detecting the battery presence which makes the claims unclear.
Therefore, the limitation is not clear.
Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 12 and 16 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, because of the same reason as stated above.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claim 16.
Examiner Note: Examiner suggests to clarify the method steps [302, 304, 306] as disclosed in Figure 3 in the Present application and also to make the method steps clear as disclosed in Paragraph 38-40 of the present application PGPUB No. US 20250044475 A1 to recite some structure of the method steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CHOPRA et al. (US 20180076671 A1) discloses, “DYNAMIC MUTUAL SENSING FOREIGN OBJECT DETECTION LOOPS- [0001] This application is generally related to wireless power charging of chargeable devices such as electric vehicles, and more specifically to systems and methods for detecting foreign metallic objects in the charging path. [0007] An example of a foreign object detection apparatus according to the disclosure includes a transmitting loop structure in a first magnetic flux orientation, a receiving loop structure in a second magnetic flux orientation, such that the receiving loop structure is galvanically isolated from the transmitting loop structure and positioned relative to the transmitting loop structure such that a magnetic field generated by the transmitting loop structure generates an expected electrical characteristic in the receiving loop structure, a control circuit configured to drive the transmitting loop structure and detect a change in the expected electrical characteristic in the receiving loop structure in response to a presence of a foreign object within the magnetic field, and a memory unit operably coupled to the control circuit and configured to store an expected electrical characteristic value corresponding to the expected electrical characteristic value the transmitting loop structure generates in the receiving loop structure. [0059] Referring to FIGS. 7A-7D, with further reference to FIG. 6, schematic diagrams of exemplary FOD loop configurations are shown. Each of the configurations includes a transmitter loop (indicated with solid lines), and a receiver loop (indicated with dashed lines). Each of the FOD loop configurations in FIGS. 7A-7D are examples of a receiving loop structure that is galvanically isolated from a transmitting loop structure and positioned relative to the transmitting loop structure such that the magnetic field generated by the transmitting loop structure does not induce a voltage in the receiving loop structure in the absence of any type of object that could distort the field-However CHOPRA does not disclose wherein the device enclosure comprises outer surfaces comprising an obverse surface and a reverse surface, wherein there is a greater amount of metal between the reverse surface and the battery as compared to an amount of metal between the obverse surface and the battery, and wherein the obverse surface faces the inductive sensor.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858