DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the numbers in parentheses should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that the Chang NPL reference submitted in the IDS filed February 25, 2025, should be resubmitted in an IDS under the NPL category instead of “Foreign Patent Documents” since it is not a patent document.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. US PGPUB 2024/0242882 in view of CHANG CHIN-WEI ET AL: "Embroidered Textile Coils for Wireless Charging of Smart Garments", 2021 IEEE WIRELESS POWER TRANSFER CONFERENCE (WPTC), IEEE, 1 June 2021 (2021-06-01), pages 1-4, XP033929465, DOI: 10.1109/WPTC51349.2021.9458167 [retrieved on 2021-06-16].
Regarding claim 1, Ho discloses a wirelessly chargeable mouse pad [fig. 15] comprising :
a first pad plate [fig. 15, 63];
a second pad plate [fig. 15, 61];
a coil module [figs. 11 & 15, 5], sandwiched between the first pad plate and the second pad plate [fig. 15], and comprising:
a fabric element [figs. 7-9; pars. 54, 57-58 & 62; the charging coil 3 consists of a wire sewn into a fabric element using thread and the base can be “non-woven fabrics, nylon fabrics, cotton fabrics, leather products”], comprising a first face and a second face [fig. 7-9 & 15; the fabric element on which coil 5 is sewn into has two faces], which are opposite to each other, and disposed with multiple through holes penetrating through the first face and the second face [figs. 7-9 & 15; pars. 57-58 & 62; the coil is “sewn” into the fabric material, sewing involves creating holes penetrating through the fabric]
an induction coil, superposed on the first face [pars. 57-58 & 62; figs. 7-9, coil 3];
a lead wire and arranged correspondingly to the induction coil [fig. 9, leads 39 connected to the coil 3; pars. 73 & 76]; and
a sewing wire, wound about the induction coil, and penetrating through the multiple through holes to be tied with the lead wire SO that the induction coil is sewed on the fabric element [figs. 7-9 & 15; pars. 57-58 & 62; thread is used to sew, 21]; and
a surface layer, covered on a surface of the first pad plate, which is away from the coil module [fig. 15, 62].
Ho does not explicitly disclose the lead is disposed on the second face.
However, Chang discloses a fabric wireless charging system wherein the lead is disposed on the second face [fig. 3; the trace and coil are on opposite sides of a vinyl layer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to further include wherein the lead is disposed on the second face for the purpose of reducing the amount of heat generated per layer, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Ho discloses wherein the fabric element comprises a fabric body and an interlining, which are laminated, the first face is formed on a surface of the fabric body, which is away from the interlining, the second face is formed on a surface of the interlining, which is away from the fabric body, and the multiple through holes are disposed on the fabric body and the interlining [fig. 6; the fabric comprises body 201 and interlining 2, body comprises first face 201, interlining 2 has second face 202 away from the body 2 and the holes are on body 201 and in the interlining (as well as 202); pars. 22 laminated fabric can be used]
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Ho discloses wherein the induction coil is formed by winding a copper wire or a woven copper wire to be a loop shape [pars. 3 & 50; copper wire in a loop (figs. 1-2, 6 & 10)].
Regarding claim 7, Ho discloses a coil module of a wirelessly chargeable mouse pad, comprising:
a fabric element [figs. 7-9; pars. 54, 57-58 & 62; the charging coil 3 consists of a wire sewn into a fabric element using thread and the base can be “non-woven fabrics, nylon fabrics, cotton fabrics, leather products”], comprising a first face and a second face [fig. 7-9 & 15; the fabric element on which coil 5 is sewn into has two faces], which are opposite to each other, and disposed with multiple through holes penetrating through the first face and the second face [figs. 7-9 & 15; pars. 57-58 & 62; the coil is “sewn” into the fabric material, sewing involves creating holes penetrating through the fabric]
an induction coil, superposed on the first face [pars. 57-58 & 62; figs. 7-9, coil 3];
a lead wire and arranged correspondingly to the induction coil [fig. 9, leads 39 connected to the coil 3; pars. 73 & 76]; and
a sewing wire, wound about the induction coil, and penetrating through the multiple through holes to be tied with the lead wire SO that the induction coil is sewed on the fabric element [figs. 7-9 & 15; pars. 57-58 & 62; thread is used to sew, 21].
Ho does not explicitly disclose the lead is disposed on the second face.
However, Chang discloses a fabric wireless charging system wherein the lead is disposed on the second face [fig. 3; the trace and coil are on opposite sides of a vinyl layer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to further include wherein the lead is disposed on the second face for the purpose of reducing the amount of heat generated per layer, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Ho discloses wherein the fabric body is formed by a textile fabric, and the interlining is made of a nonwoven fabric [par. 62; non-woven fabrics which can be both textile and non-woven].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6 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.
With respect to claim 3, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “three adhesive layers, wherein one of the adhesive layers is disposed between the fabric body and the first pad plate, another adhesive layer is disposed between the interlining and the second pad plate, and a remaining adhesive layer is disposed between the surface layer and the first pad plate to make both the coil module adhered between the first pad plate and the second pad plate and the surface layer adhered on a surface of the first pad plate, which is away from the coil module” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 3.
Claim 4, being dependent on claim 3, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 3.
With respect to claim 6, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the first pad plate and the second pad plate sheathe outside the coil module by plastic one-piece injection molding, and the surface layer is coated on a surface of the first pad plate by printing, which is away from the coil module” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lu US PGPUB 2020/0218370 discloses a fabric mouse pad with a wireless charging coil in between layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
