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 .
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.
Claim 38 is 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.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the conductive layer" in lines 5, 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that “the conductive layer appears four times within lines 5, 6 and 7, while newly amended claim 38 contains both the limitations of “a wireless power receiving coupling apparatus comprising a non-looped conductive layer”, as well as a conductive layer of the transmitting coupling apparatus. As a result the Examiner is unable to determine how to interpret the limitations of claim 38 for examination purposes on the merits. Further amendment is required to clarify the antecedent basis of which conductive layer is which for purposes of examination on the merits of claim 38.
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.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maniktala (US 2018/0062441).
Maniktala discloses:
In regard to claim 37: (Currently Amended)
A wireless power receiving coupling apparatus (Figs. 2 & 3 Item 210 & Par. [0019]) comprising a plurality of coil segments (Figs. 2 & 3 Items 230, 220a-d) which are adapted to extend between two planes parallel to a conductive layer of a wireless power transmitting coupling apparatus (Figs. 2 & 3 Items 110, 114 and 118 & Pars. [0019-0020]), which are adapted to be arranged about and to extend along an axis perpendicular to the planes (Figs. 2 & 3 Items 210, 110, 114 and 118 & Pars. [0019-0020] i.e. parallel and perpendicular), and which are adapted to be oriented in different radial directions with respect to the axis (Figs. 2, 3 & 5 Items 550, 210, 110, 114 and 118 & Par. [0028] i.e. no particular alignment of the receiver is required with multiple radial positions shown further when the phone 550 is in an upright position segments of the coils are in different planes and different radial directions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as applied to independent claim 37. Applicant has argued that the Maniktala reference (US 2018/0062441) does not teach the limitations of claim 37, specifically: 1) “ a plurality of coil segments … oriented in different radial directions with respect to the axis”. Applicant has argued 1) that because the Maniktala reference teaches a helical coil configuration for coils 220a-220d considered to be substantially in the same plane as coil structure 230, therefore they cannot read on claim 37. Examiner disagrees with Applicants Arguments, and has clarified the claim rejection above. When coil structures 220a-d and 230 are located within a case like Item 550 the case can be “adapted to extend” or “adapted to be arranged” (borrowing from Applicants claim 37) placing the coil structures in different planes (i.e. upright or laying down. Further Segments defined by the dictionary can be interpreted as a small section of the larger whole, therefore within Maniktala there are segments of the coils that run in the x, y, and z, direction therefore while there may be a single layer of coil structures, there can still be the interpretation of multiple planes taught through bifurcation and segmentation. Examiner is of the opinion that claim 37 in its current state is not in condition for allowance and the rejection is maintained.
Please Also See References: Nam et al. (US 2021/0186249) Teaching Receiver coils oriented in the X, Y, and Z direction and multiple planes, as well as Ren et al. (US 2018/0034327) teaching wireless receivers/transmitters also oriented in the X, Y, and Z direction, and multiple planes.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-36 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 19-36, the prior art of record fails to teach either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 19, especially a non-looped conductive layer adapted to be arranged rearwardly from and facing toward a wireless power receiving coupling apparatus, and configured to conduct an input current across opposite ends of the conductive layer along a first planar direction and a magnetically permeable guide layer arranged rearwardly from and facing toward the conductive layer, and configured to guide the generated magnetic field forwardly and across opposite outer peripheral edges of the conductive layer along a second planar direction perpendicular to the first planar direction in combination with other limitations recited in the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached Form PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARMFLASH whose telephone number is (571)270-1434. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM EST M-Th.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
MW
11/14/2025
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836