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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 08/20/2026 in which claims 8-20 have been newly added while claims 1-7 remain as originally presented. By this amendment, claims 1-20 are still pending on the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s representative argues that:
A. Larssson discloses two structurally distinct components, and the rejection combines features drawn from each.
Larsson describes (i) an annular alignment component (a ring of arcuate magnets
surrounding the inductive coils) (Larsson ¶¶0062, 0093) and (ii) a separate rotational alignment component, described as "one or more magnets disposed outboard of an annular alignment component" (Larsson ¶¶ 0008, 0063). These are different structures serving different functions
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim 1 also recites:
An apparatus comprising: a housing having an interior surface and an exterior surface, the housing defining an internal cavity; an induction coil disposed within the internal cavity adjacent to the interior surface, the induction coil substantially parallel to the exterior surface, the induction coil configured to receive electric energy via an electromotive force caused by a fluctuating magnetic field; and a magnetic alignment component disposed proximate to the induction coil, the magnetic alignment component comprising multiple magnetic field-inducing components arranged in a polygonal shape, one or more sides of the polygonal shape comprise three magnetic field-inducing components….
Note that the induction coil and the magnetic element are also two separate structures as recited in claim 1 above and denoted by the conjunction “and”, therefore applicant’s arguments are deemed non-persuasive.
Applicant’s representative further argues that:
B. Larsson’s “triple pole” is three magnetized regions of a single magnet, not three magnets forming a side of a polygon.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Larsson teaches and shows in Fig. 16, that primary annular alignment component (1616) can be formed of arcuate magnets (1626) arranged in an annular configuration and secondary annular alignment component (1618) can be formed of more than three arcuate magnets 1628 (see (¶¶[0151]-[0153]). Although a single rotational element is shown in Fig. 16, Fig. 23 shows a portable electronic device (2304) having an alignment system (2300) with multiple rotational alignment components according to some embodiments. In this example, alignment system (2300) includes an annular alignment component (2318) and a set of rotational alignment components (2324) positioned at various locations around the perimeter of annular alignment component (2318). In this example, there are four rotational alignment components (2324) positioned at angular intervals of approximately 90 degrees. In other embodiments, different numbers and spacing of rotational alignment components can be used. Each rotational alignment component (2324) can have any of the magnetization configurations described above, including z-pole, quad-pole, triple-pole, or annulus-design configurations, or a different configuration(see ¶[0166]).
Furthermore, 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). Apparently most of applicant’s arguments are directed to Larsson.
Therefore rejections to claims 1-4 have been maintained where arguments were found less persuasive and rejection to claims 5 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4152765 A1 to Davids et al., (Davids) in view of US 2021/0099026 A1 Larsson et al., (Larsson)(cited by Applicants) or Morrison et al., (Morrison) USPAT 9,910,455 B1
Regarding claim 1: Davids discloses and shows in Figs. 1-6: An apparatus(1)(wirelessly rechargeable hearing device) comprising: a housing(2) having an interior surface and an exterior surface(see Figs. 1,4 and 5), the housing(2) defining an internal cavity(6); an induction coil(3) disposed within the internal cavity(6)(see Fig. 4) adjacent to the interior surface(interior surface of volume 6; see [0125],[0127]-[0128])), the induction coil(3) substantially parallel to the exterior surface(55)(see Figs. 4, 6 and 10 and [0140]), the induction coil(3) configured to receive electric energy via an electromotive force caused by a fluctuating magnetic field(inductive transmitter coil 27)(note-The induction coils 3, 27, i.e. the receiver coil 3 and the transmitter coil 27, will be configured to operate at one or more frequency ranges and they may be configured according to a standard of wireless power transfer, such as e.g. the Near Field Communications (NFC) standard, or the Qi standard; see [0122]); and a magnetic alignment component(23) disposed proximate to the induction coil(3).
Davids does not teach:
the magnetic alignment component comprising multiple magnetic field-inducing components arranged in a polygonal shape, one or more sides of the polygonal shape comprise three magnetic field-inducing components, a first magnetic field-inducing component having a first magnetic field polarity, a second magnetic field-inducing component having a second magnetic field polarity, and a third magnetic field-inducing component having the first magnetic field polarity.
Larssson discloses and shows in factual evidence of, the magnetic alignment component(1018/2124)(see Figs. 10,21A and 21B) comprising multiple magnetic field-inducing components(1028a,1028b,1028c…1028h) arranged in a polygonal shape, one or more sides of the polygonal shape comprise three magnetic field-inducing components(2125,2127,2129)(see [0162]), a first magnetic field-inducing component(2124)(see Figs. 21A,21B) having a first magnetic field polarity(2127(N)), a second magnetic field-inducing component having a second magnetic field polarity(2125)(S), and a third magnetic field-inducing component(2129)(N) having the first magnetic field polarity(N).
Morrison also teaches and shows in Figs. 5C,6B,6E and 6G factual evidence of, magnetic alignment component comprising multiple magnetic field-inducing components arranged in a polygonal shape, one or more sides of the polygonal shape comprise three magnetic field-inducing components, a first magnetic field-inducing component having a first magnetic field polarity, a second magnetic field-inducing component having a second magnetic field polarity, and a third magnetic field-inducing component having the first magnetic field polarity.
Davids and Larsson are wireless charging devices with magnetic alignment components analogous art. Morrisson is also an analogous art directed to magnetic alignment connector.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Davids with Larsson or Morrison by having, the magnetic alignment component comprising multiple magnetic field-inducing components arranged in a polygonal shape, one or more sides of the polygonal shape comprise three magnetic field-inducing components, a first magnetic field-inducing component having a first magnetic field polarity, a second magnetic field-inducing component having a second magnetic field polarity, and a third magnetic field-inducing component having the first magnetic field polarity, as recited, to improve and maximize the efficient of the wireless energy transfer. Having such a configuration in which the magnetic alignment comprises multiple magnets mounted with alternating polarity or adjacent magnets have opposite polarities which would increase the magnetic force to provide a suitable retention force, as evidenced per the teachings of Morrison(col. 9, lines 11-30 and col. 10, lines 10-25).s
Accordingly claim 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Davids in view of Larsson or Morrison discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Davids further discloses, wherein the magnetic field-inducing components comprise at least one of a permanent magnet(see Davids; [0108]) or an electromagnet.
Regarding claim 3, Davids in view of Larsson or Morrison discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Davids further discloses, wherein the magnetic alignment component(23) is disposed coaxially with the induction coil(3)(see Davids; [0109]-[0110]).
Regarding claim 4, Davids in view of Larsson or Morrison discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Larsson further discloses, wherein each side of the polygonal shape(rectangular as shown in Figs. 21A-21B) comprises three magnetic field-inducing components(2125,2127,2129)(see [0162]), the first magnetic field-inducing component having the first magnetic field polarity(2127(N)), the second magnetic field-inducing component having the second magnetic field polarity(2125(S)), and the third magnetic field-inducing component(2129)(N) having the first magnetic field polarity(N) (see also Morrison; col. 9, lines 11 to col. 10, line 25 and Figs. 5C,6B,6E and 6G).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over EP 4152765 A1 to Davids et al., (Davids) in view of US 2021/0099026 A1 Larsson et al., (Larsson)(cited by Applicants) or Morrison et al., (Morrison) USPAT 9,910,455 B1
Regarding claim 6, Davids in view of Larsson or Morrison discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the polygonal shape comprises an octagon.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the magnetic field-inducing components be of octagon shape, since the rational that a particular shape is a design choice may be found in legal precedent: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at time of the invention to provide the magnetic field-inducing components to be of octagon shape or any desired shape and configuration, including as claimed, in order to achieve the most pleasant aesthetic appearance and the most convenience for a user, since this would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design change and/or change in shape of the device.
Accordingly claim 6 would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record either taken alone or in combination thereof fails to teach or reasonably suggest, among other patentable features, An apparatus comprising: a housing … the housing defining an internal cavity; an induction coil disposed within the internal cavity adjacent to the interior surface, the induction coil substantially parallel to the exterior surface, the induction coil configured to receive electric energy via an electromotive force caused by a fluctuating magnetic field; and a magnetic alignment component disposed proximate to the induction coil, the magnetic alignment component comprising multiple magnetic field-inducing components arranged in a polygonal shape, one or more sides of the polygonal shape comprise three magnetic field-inducing components, a first magnetic field-inducing component having a first magnetic field polarity, a second magnetic field-inducing component having a second magnetic field polarity, and a third magnetic field-inducing component having the first magnetic field polarity, at least one side of the polygonal shape comprises two magnetic field-inducing components, a fourth magnetic field- inducing component having the first magnetic field polarity, a fifth magnetic field- inducing component having the second magnetic field polarity.
Claims 9-20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 8 and thus are also allowed for the same reasons.
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPAT 12,417,868 B2 to Daugherty et al., (Daugherty) discloses the general state of the art regarding a magnet array holder accelerated assembly and improved alignment in vacuum electronic devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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 A 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 September 25, 2026
