DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This communication is an Office Action Final rejection on the merits in response to the filing of the applicant’s amendments / remarks on 11/17/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is acknowledged that this application is a Continuation of application 17/926,639 (now US Patent 12,046,923).
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15, of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,923. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a foreign object detection in a wireless power transfer system in a similar manner without patentable distinguishable features.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,923 discloses a power transmitter comprising: a transmitter coil, wherein the transmitter coil is arranged to generate an electromagnetic test field; two detection coils, wherein the signals induced in the two detection coils by the electromagnetic test field compensate for each other;
a foreign object detector circuit coupled to the two detection coils,
wherein the foreign object detector circuit is arranged to detect a foreign object in response to a property of an output signal,
wherein the output signal is from the two detection coils;
wherein the output signal meets a foreign object detection criterion;
a communication antenna; a communicator circuit coupled to the communication antenna, wherein the communicator circuit is arranged to communicate with a power receiver via the communication antenna; wherein the communication antenna comprises at least a first communication coil and a second communication coil, wherein first communication coil has a first coupling to the first detection coil wherein second communication coil has a second coupling to the second detection coil, wherein the first coupling and the second coupling is at least one of capacitive couplings and inductive couplings, wherein the first coupling and the second coupling at least partially compensate for each other in the output signal (see Claim 1).
Regarding claims 2-15, these claims are unpatentable over claims 2-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,923 since are similar.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of US Patent 12,046,923 discloses a method comprising:
providing a transmitter coil, wherein the transmitter coil is arranged to generate an electromagnetic test field;
providing two detection coils,
wherein signals induced in the two detection coils by the electromagnetic test field compensate each other;
providing a foreign object detector circuit coupled to the two detection coils, wherein the two detection coils are arranged to perform foreign object detection, wherein the foreign object detector circuit is arranged to detect a foreign object in response to a property of an output signal, wherein the output signal is produced by the two detection coils meeting a foreign object detection criterion; providing a communication antenna; and
providing a communicator circuit coupled to the communication antenna, wherein the communicator circuit is arranged to communicate with a power receiver via the communication antenna; wherein the communication antenna comprises at least a first communication coil and a second communication coil, wherein the first communication coil and the second communication coil are coupled in parallel with the first communication coil, wherein the communication antenna is arranged with a first segment of the first communication coil having a first capacitive coupling to the first detection coil, wherein the communication antenna is arranged with a second segment of the second coil having a second capacitive coupling to the second detection coil, wherein the first coupling and the second coupling is at least one of a capacitive couplings and inductive couplings, wherein the first coupling and the second coupling compensating each other in the output signal (see Claim 15).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/17/2025 with respect to claims 1-28 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. The argument is moot since the statutory double patent rejection has been replaced with a non-statutory double patenting rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. In addition, the examiner recommends the applicant to submit a terminal disclaimer directed to claims 1-28 in order to expedite prosecution of this application and overcome the double patenting rejection. In addition, after reconsideration the 112 rejections has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
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 ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836