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 information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on January 26th, 2024 and January 24th, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 12, 14, 16, 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20190181544 A1), herein referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a ring-type device (10) comprising: a wireless power receiver circuit comprising a power receiver circuit (20) and a loop coil (200); a radio communication circuit (280) configured to operate with the loop coil (200) serving as an antenna; and a ring-shaped structure (140) having a lateral ring face (outer “band face”, fig 2), a top ring face (top of 140, the unseen side in fig. 2) and a bottom ring face (bottom/120 in fig. 2), with the loop coil being along the top ring face (top of 200), wherein the power receiver circuit (NFC loop 20) and the radio communication circuit (280) comprise an electronic component, and a flexible circuit board (210) to which the electronic component is mounted, the flexible circuit board is planar in structure (see fig. 4), and is in a curved configuration along the lateral ring face of the ring-shaped structure (see fig. 2), and the loop coil is configured such that a current flow through the loop coil causes magnetic flux to be generated in a direction perpendicular to the top ring face and to the bottom ring face (see fig. 2, the flux will travel upwards through the coil).
Regarding claim 2, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Kim also discloses wherein the loop coil (200) is in the flexible circuit board (210), and as the flexible circuit board is bent, the loop coil is positioned along the top ring face (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Kim also discloses wherein the loop coil (200) extends along the top ring face and along the bottom ring face (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 3.
Kim also discloses wherein the loop coil (200) is in the flexible circuit board (210), and as the flexible circuit board (210) is bent, the loop coil (200) is positioned along the top ring face and the bottom ring face (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Kim also discloses wherein the flexible circuit board (200) is a multilayer body comprising a plurality of stacked layers (see fig. 6), the plurality of stacked layers comprising a resin layer (base substrate 210, resins are a common material in FPCBs) and a conductor layer (220), the multilayer body comprising at least a first region (see fig. 4, where the loop coil is laid) and a second region (see fig. 4, where 280 is laid), the first region including the loop coil, the second region being a region to which the electronic component is mounted, and in the first region, the resin layer and the conductor layer comprise a number of stacked layers greater than a number of stacked layers in the second region (see fig. 6, the upper conductive layer is not in the second region), and the first region and the second region are electrically connected to each other (by nature of the communication element 280 being connected to the loop coil 200).
Regarding claim 7, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Kim also discloses further comprising: a magnetic sheet (290) extending along the loop coil (200), and wherein the loop coil is in sheet form (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 2.
Kim also discloses wherein the flexible circuit board (200) is a multilayer body comprising a plurality of stacked layers (see fig. 6), the plurality of stacked layers comprising a resin layer (base substrate 210, resins are a common material in FPCBs) and a conductor layer (220), the multilayer body comprising at least a first region (see fig. 4, where the loop coil is laid) and a second region (see fig. 4, where 280 is laid), the first region including the loop coil, the second region being a region to which the electronic component is mounted, and in the first region, the resin layer and the conductor layer comprise a number of stacked layers greater than a number of stacked layers in the second region (see fig. 6, the upper conductive layer is not in the second region), and the first region and the second region are electrically connected to each other (by nature of the communication element 280 being connected to the loop coil 200).
Regarding claim 11, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 3.
Kim also discloses wherein the flexible circuit board (200) is a multilayer body comprising a plurality of stacked layers (see fig. 6), the plurality of stacked layers comprising a resin layer (base substrate 210, resins are a common material in FPCBs) and a conductor layer (220), the multilayer body comprising at least a first region (see fig. 4, where the loop coil is laid) and a second region (see fig. 4, where 280 is laid), the first region including the loop coil, the second region being a region to which the electronic component is mounted, and in the first region, the resin layer and the conductor layer comprise a number of stacked layers greater than a number of stacked layers in the second region (see fig. 6, the upper conductive layer is not in the second region), and the first region and the second region are electrically connected to each other (by nature of the communication element 280 being connected to the loop coil 200).
Regarding claim 13, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 2.
Kim also discloses further comprising: a magnetic sheet (290) extending along the loop coil (200), and wherein the loop coil is in sheet form (see fig. 2).
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 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and further in view of Kanj et al. (US 20140125538 A1), herein referred to as Kanj.
Regarding claim 8, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Kim also discloses wherein the ring-shaped structure is sized to fit on a finger of a user (para. 0001).
Kim does not disclose wherein the structure comprises an indicator, the indicator indicating where the loop coil is located.
However, adding an indicator for directionality would be considered a simple design choice, as seen in Kanj (para. 0033) in order to help the user better direct the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the structure of Kim wherein the structure comprises an indicator, the indicator indicating where the loop coil is located, as suggested by the teachings of Kanj, in order to help the user direct the device (para. 0033).
Regarding claim 15, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 2.
Kim also discloses wherein the ring-shaped structure is sized to fit on a finger of a user (para. 0001).
Kim does not disclose wherein the structure comprises an indicator, the indicator indicating where the loop coil is located.
However, adding an indicator for directionality would be considered a simple design choice, as seen in Kanj (para. 0033) in order to help the user better direct the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the structure of Kim wherein the structure comprises an indicator, the indicator indicating where the loop coil is located, as suggested by the teachings of Kanj, in order to help the user direct the device (para. 0033).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and further in view of Minemura (US 20050151690 A1), herein referred to as Minemura.
Regarding claim 9, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 2.
Kim also discloses wherein the ring-shaped structure includes metal (para. 0007)
Kim does not disclose wherein the lateral ring face has a slit defining a gap.
However, Minemura discloses a similar device comprising a loop antenna and a slit (423c) defining a gap (para. 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the ring-shaped structure of Kim wherein the lateral ring face has a slit definig a gap, as taught by Minemura, for impedance matching (para. 0081).
Regarding claim 17, Kim anticipates all limitations of base claim 4.
Kim also discloses wherein the ring-shaped structure includes metal (para. 0007)
Kim does not disclose wherein the lateral ring face has a slit defining a gap.
However, Minemura discloses a similar device comprising a loop antenna and a slit (423c) defining a gap (para. 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the ring-shaped structure of Kim wherein the lateral ring face has a slit defining a gap, as taught by Minemura, for impedance matching (para. 0081).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845