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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the applicant's amendment submitted on 07/28/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11-20 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation recites “a first helical winding having a first terminal end for connecting to a source; and a second helical winding having a first terminal end for connecting to the source” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Enoch et al. (U.S Publication No. 20210093881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Enoch discloses an antenna (which is a magnetic emission device includes an antenna 102), (see fig. 1-9), comprising:
a first helical winding (which is a first spiral coil 302) having a first terminal end for connecting to a source (via a current-generating device 304 and a control device 110), (see fig. 3); and
a second helical winding (which is a second spiral coil 302’) having a first terminal end for connecting to the source (via a current-generating device 304 and a control device 110), (see fig. 3),
wherein current flow in the first (302) and second helical windings (302’) is in a same direction, such that a field generated by the first helical winding and a field generated by the second helical winding are additive, and wherein the second helical winding is interleaved with the first helical (see fig. 3, and paragraph [0052], [0054]-[0057]); and
a second terminal end (via a peripheral end E.sub.7) of the first helical winding (302) and a second terminal end (via a peripheral end E’.sub. 7) of the second helical winding (302’) are both open (see fig. 3, and paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Enoch discloses the antenna of claim 1, wherein the first (302) and second helical windings (302’) present a same diameter (see fig. 3, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Enoch discloses the antenna of claim 1, wherein an input signal is supplied to a first terminal end (via a central end S or S’) of each of the first (302) and second helical windings (302’), (see fig. 1 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enoch et al. (U.S Publication No. 20210093881 A1) in view of Kato et al. (U.S Publication No. 20120091821 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Enoch discloses all the limitations of the antenna of claim 1, except for specifying that wherein a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm.
Enoch further discloses there are antennas of different sizes and shapes, and these parameters largely determine the distribution and the penetration capacity of the magnetic field in a given brain region, the span and the spatial resolution thereof (see paragraph [0004]).
Kato, on the other hand, discloses an antenna apparatus according to the present disclosure, since a conductive layer generates the large loop of a magnetic flux, a magnetic flux from the antenna apparatus reaches an antenna in a communication partner or a magnetic flux from the antenna in the communication partner reaches the antenna apparatus. The maximum possible communication range between the antenna apparatus and the antenna in the communication partner is therefore increased. The following table indicates results of measurement of a distance range in which the antenna apparatus 101 including the antenna coil module 3 and an antenna in a communication partner can communicate with each other when the size of the antenna coil module 3 is changed.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE Size of Antenna With Conductive Coil Module No Conductive Layer Layer 22.5 mm .times. 20 mm 0 to 24 mm 0 to 44 mm 22.5 mm .times. 19 mm 0 to 23 mm 0 to 43 mm 22.5 mm .times. 18 mm 0 to 19 mm 0 to 41 mm 22.5 mm .times. 17 mm -- 0 to 39 mm 22.5 mm .times. 16 mm -- 0 to 38 mm. For example, in the case of an antenna apparatus including the antenna coil module 3 with a size of 22.5 mm.times.18 mm, the maximum possible communication range is increased to 41 mm using a conductive layer from 19 mm obtained with no conductive layer.
For example, in the case of an antenna apparatus including the antenna coil module 3 with a size equal to or smaller than 22.5 mm.times.17 mm, the antenna apparatus cannot perform communication when a conductive layer is not present. On the other hand, when a conductive layer is present, even in the case of an antenna apparatus including the antenna coil module 3 with a very small size of, for example, 22.5 mm.times.16 mm, the antenna apparatus can perform communication in the wide range of 0 mm to 38 mm (see paragraph [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the antenna as taught by Enoch with the antenna as taught by Kato having a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention was made to modify the antenna as taught the antenna as taught by Enoch in view of Kato having a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enoch et al. (U.S Publication No. 20210093881 A1) in view of Bojiuc et al. (U.S Publication No. 20180145546 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Enoch discloses all the limitations of the antenna of claim 1, except for specifying that further comprising a ferrite core disposed within an opening defined by the first and second helical windings
Regarding claim 6, Enoch discloses the antenna of claim 1, wherein the first (302) and second helical windings (302’) each present a first diameter (see fig. 3).
Enoch does not explicitly disclose the antenna further comprising third and fourth interleaved helical windings each presenting a second diameter, the second diameter greater than the first diameter, and wherein the first and second helical windings disposed concentrically relative to the third and fourth windings within an opening defined by the third and fourth helical windings.
Bojiuc, on the other hand, discloses an assembly 10 with multilayer series-parallel wound wire layers 20 and 20′ over a multiple number of space apart interleaved common ferromagnetic core support lamination strips 30″ may have an inner or central starting point from the leads 50 and 50′ for the first layer over the first ferromagnetic lamination support 30′ and continuing on an opposed winding direction as a mirrored embodiment continuing to build by repetition up again and again until it reaches the decided number of layers and the entire coil′ size and electromagnetic value becomes as projected for the end user's needs (see fig. 1-8, paragraph [0130]). Bojiuc further discloses the limit to increasing N is that the larger number of windings takes up more room between the magnet's core pieces. If the area available for the windings is filled up, more turns require going to a smaller diameter of wire, which has higher resistance, which cancels the advantage of using more turns. So in large prior art magnets there is a minimum amount of heat loss that can't be reduced (see paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to incorporate the antenna as taught by Bojiuc into the antenna as taught by Enoch having third and fourth interleaved helical windings each presenting a second diameter, the second diameter greater than the first diameter, and wherein the first and second helical windings disposed concentrically relative to the third and fourth windings within an opening defined by the third and fourth helical windings as claimed, in order for the windings is filled up in the area available, and more turns require going to a smaller diameter of wire, which has higher resistance, which cancels the advantage of using more turns. So in large prior art magnets there is a minimum amount of heat loss that can't be reduced (see paragraph [0053 by Bojiuc).
Regarding claim 8, Enoch in view of Bojiuc discloses the antenna of claim 6, wherein an input signal is supplied to a first, second, third, and fourth input terminal end of the respective first, second, third, and fourth helical windings (see fig. 4-6 by Bojiuc).
Regarding claim 9, Enoch in view of Bojiuc the antenna of claim 6, further comprising a ferrite core (which is a ferrite core, or a ferromagnetic core support lamination strips 30’) disposed within an opening defined by the first and second helical windings (see fig. 3, paragraph [0004], [0079], [0098], [0130] by Bojiuc).
Regarding claim 10, Enoch in view of Bojiuc discloses the antenna of claim 9, wherein the ferrite core comprises a rectangular ferrite core (Bojiuc discloses a ferrite core, see fig. 3). Enoch in view of Bojiuc silently discloses the ferrite core having dimensions of 1.3 x 1.3 x 8.0 mm.
Enoch in view of Bojiuc discloses the ferrite core comprises a rectangular ferrite core (which is the antenna system has a ferrite coil of 2 mm diameter and 6 mm length with an inductance of 3 uH, see paragraph [0053] by Kerselaers, and Bojiuc discloses a ferrite core, see fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the ferrite core as taught by Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc having dimensions of 1.3 x 1.3 x 8.0 mm, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enoch et al. (U.S Publication No. 20210093881 A1) in view of Bojiuc et al. (U.S Publication No. 20180145546 A1), and further in view of Kato et al. (U.S Publication No. 20120091821 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Enoch in view of Bojiuc discloses the antenna of claim 6, except for specifying that wherein the first or the second diameter is about 1 mm.
Enoch further discloses there are antennas of different sizes and shapes, and these parameters largely determine the distribution and the penetration capacity of the magnetic field in a given brain region, the span and the spatial resolution thereof (see paragaraph [0004]).
Kato, on the other hand, discloses an antenna apparatus according to the present disclosure, since a conductive layer generates the large loop of a magnetic flux, a magnetic flux from the antenna apparatus reaches an antenna in a communication partner or a magnetic flux from the antenna in the communication partner reaches the antenna apparatus. The maximum possible communication range between the antenna apparatus and the antenna in the communication partner is therefore increased. The following table indicates results of measurement of a distance range in which the antenna apparatus 101 including the antenna coil module 3 and an antenna in a communication partner can communicate with each other when the size of the antenna coil module 3 is changed.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE Size of Antenna With Conductive Coil Module No Conductive Layer Layer 22.5 mm .times. 20 mm 0 to 24 mm 0 to 44 mm 22.5 mm .times. 19 mm 0 to 23 mm 0 to 43 mm 22.5 mm .times. 18 mm 0 to 19 mm 0 to 41 mm 22.5 mm .times. 17 mm -- 0 to 39 mm 22.5 mm .times. 16 mm -- 0 to 38 mm. For example, in the case of an antenna apparatus including the antenna coil module 3 with a size of 22.5 mm.times.18 mm, the maximum possible communication range is increased to 41 mm using a conductive layer from 19 mm obtained with no conductive layer.
For example, in the case of an antenna apparatus including the antenna coil module 3 with a size equal to or smaller than 22.5 mm.times.17 mm, the antenna apparatus cannot perform communication when a conductive layer is not present. On the other hand, when a conductive layer is present, even in the case of an antenna apparatus including the antenna coil module 3 with a very small size of, for example, 22.5 mm.times.16 mm, the antenna apparatus can perform communication in the wide range of 0 mm to 38 mm (see paragraph [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the antenna as taught by Enoch with the antenna as taught by Kato having a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention was made to modify the antenna as taught the antenna as taught by Enoch in view of Kato having a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 08/28/2026
Prosecution Insights