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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/490,504 filed on 10/19/2023 in which claims 1-7 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(e), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on US provisional applications #63/507,684, filed on 06/12/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2023, 02/14/2024, 06/05/2024 and 09/19/2025 have been considered and put on record. Initialed copies are attached herewith.
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 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)
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).
Davids and Larsson are wireless charging devices with magnetic alignment components analogous art.
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 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.
Accordingly claim 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Davids in view of Larsson 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 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 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).
Claims 5-6 are 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)
Regarding claim 5, Davids in view of Larsson discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 but fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
wherein the first magnetic field-inducing component and the third magnetic field-inducing component comprise greater magnetic field intensities than a magnetic field intensity of the second magnetic field-inducing component.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have had the first magnetic field-inducing component and the third magnetic field-inducing component comprise greater magnetic field intensities than a magnetic field intensity of the second magnetic field-inducing component, as recited, since such modifications, are no more than design choice. Furthermore, since applicant has not disclosed that, having the first magnetic field-inducing component and the third magnetic field-inducing component comprise greater magnetic field intensities than a magnetic field intensity of the second magnetic field-inducing component, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the configuration of Larsson as shown in Figs. 21A-21B. Additionally, a patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Accordingly claim 5 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Davids in view of Larsson 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 such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, “…wherein 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.”
Citation of Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 114616121 A to Jin et al., (Jin) discloses a wireless charging device and mobile tool comprising the same.
CN 113490597 B to Berthon et al., (Berthon) discloses a device and printer for generating security elements on a substrate.
CN 112951538 A to Kubo et al., (Kubo) discloses a magnetic sheet, coil module with magnetic sheet and non-contact power supply device.
CN 105359379 A to Mi et al., (Mi) discloses the general state of the art regarding a wireless power transmission system for battery charging.
US 2022/0215992 A1 to Vilenskiy et al., (Vilenskiy) discloses the general state of the art regarding a multilayer inductor.
USPAT 9,845,018 B2 to Dede et al.., (Dede) discloses self-aligning wireless power transfer.
US 2015/0332827 A1 to Omori et al., (Omori) discloses a non-contact power transmission system.
USPAT 11,710,989 B2 to Thompson et al., (Thompson) discloses a magnetic alignment systems with rotational alignment component for electronic devices.
USPAT 10,218,222 B2 to Hidaka et al., (Hidaka) discloses a non-contact charging module having a wireless charging coil and a magnetic sheet.
Conclusion
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 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights