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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 1: (Currently amended)
Larsson discloses a power receiving device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500) and comprising: a printed circuit board (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295]); a magnetic structure disposed along a periphery of the printed circuit board (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields), wherein the magnetic structure comprises one or more of ferrite and nanocrystalline alloy sheets (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields); a wireless power transfer coil (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 1210) disposed on the magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228) and configured to receive wireless power from a power transmitting device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 1210 & Pars. [00153 and 0155]); and configured to reduce electromagnetic noise produced from the wireless power transfer coil while receiving wireless power from the power transmitting device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields).
However, Larsson is vague in its disclosure of a conductor electrically coupling the magnetic structure to an electrical contact on the printed circuit board.
Russell corrects this vagueness by teaching that a PCB may have electrical contacts capable of being wired to components of wireless power (Par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the invention to have combined the teaching of Russell of using a PCB with electrical contacts capable of being wired to the components of wireless power with the known magnetic alignment systems with NFC for electronic devices of Larsson as doing so would have yielded the known predictable result of a safely wired circuit.
In regard to claim 2: (Currently amended)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, wherein the magnetic structure comprises an arcuate structure shielding from AC electric fields and Pars. [0121] and [0286] i.e. annular magnetic shape is arcuate thereby ferrite shielding material would mirror.).
In regard to claim 4: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, wherein the electrical contact comprises a ground contact electrically coupled to a ground of the power receiving device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500 i.e. cell phones use internal common ground for safety).
In regard to claim 5: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, further comprising: one or more antennas configured to convey cellular or Wi-Fi signals, wherein the electrical contact is electrically coupled to a ground of the one or more antennas (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500 i.e. cell phones have antennas to convey cellular or Wi-Fi signals and cell phones use an internal common ground for safety).
In regard to claim 6: (Currently amended)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, further comprising: an additional conductor electrically coupling the magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields) to an additional electrical contact on the printed circuit board (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. as improved by Russell).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 3: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, wherein the conductor is a flexible circuit (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. flexible PCB).
However Modified Larsson is vague in its disclosure of the conductor having a first end electrically coupled to the magnetic structure via conductive adhesive and a second end electrically coupled to the electrical contact via conductive adhesive or a ferrite bead.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have selected a conductive adhesive for connecting the conductor to the magnetic structure, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different connection method like a ferrite bead on both ends.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938) and further in view of Sultenfuss et al. (US 2023/0208210).
In regard to claim 7: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, including the printed circuit board.
However, modified Larsson does not explicitly disclose one or more light-emitting diodes and one or more light sensors disposed on the printed circuit board.
Sultenfuss teaches that an LED light indicator can be coupled to the PCB (ABS) as well as the use of coupling sensors including an IR sensor (Par. [0030]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the invention to have combined the teaching of Sultenfuss with the known magnetic alignment systems with NFC for electronic devices of modified Larsson as doing so would have yielded the known predictable result alignment improvement.
Claim(s) 8, 9 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 8: (Currently amended)
Larsson discloses a power receiving device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500) comprising: a housing (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 52, Items 5203, 5205 of 5001 & Par. [0281]); a magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields) comprising one or more of a ferrite and nanocrystalline alloy sheets (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields); a wireless power transfer coil (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 1210) disposed on the magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and configured to receive wireless power from a power transmitting device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 1210 & Pars. [00153 and 0155]); and configured to reduce electromagnetic noise produced from the wireless power transfer coil while receiving wireless power from the power transmitting device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields).
However, Larsson is vague in its disclosure of a conductor electrically coupling the magnetic structure to a conductive portion of the housing.
Russell corrects this vagueness by teaching that a PCB may have electrical contacts capable of being wired to components of wireless power (Par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the invention to have combined the teaching of Russell of using a PCB with electrical contacts capable of being wired to the components of wireless power with the known magnetic alignment systems with NFC for electronic devices of Larsson as doing so would have yielded the known predictable result of a safely wired circuit.
In regard to claim 9: (Currently amended)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 8, wherein the magnetic structure comprises an arcuate structure
In regard to claim 11: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 8, wherein the conductive portion of the housing comprises a ground of the power receiving device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500 i.e. cell phones use internal common ground for safety).
In regard to claim 12: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 8, further comprising: one or more antennas configured to convey cellular or Wi-Fi signals, wherein the conductive portion of the house is electrically coupled to a ground of the one or more antennas (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500 i.e. cell phones have antennas to convey cellular or Wi-Fi signals and cell phones use an internal common ground for safety).
In regard to claim 13: (Cancelled)
7. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 10: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 8, wherein the conductor is a flexible circuit (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. flexible PCB).
However, Modified Larsson is vague in its disclosure of the conductor having a first end electrically coupled to the magnetic structure via conductive adhesive and a second end electrically coupled to the electrical contact via conductive adhesive or a ferrite bead.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have selected a conductive adhesive for connecting the conductor to the magnetic structure, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different connection method like a ferrite bead on both ends.
Claim(s) 14 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 14: (Currently amended)
Larsson discloses a power receiving device comprising: a magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields) comprising one or more of ferrite and nanocrystalline alloy sheets (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & pars. [0153] i.e. electromagnetic shielding (e.g. one or more pieces of ferrite placed over the outer annular surface) and [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields); a wireless power transfer coil (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 1210) disposed on the magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228) and configured to receive wireless power from a power transmitting device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 1210 & Pars. [00153 and 0155]); and an electromagnetic shielding layer at least partially overlapping with the magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields), wherein the electromagnetic shielding layer is configured to reduce electromagnetic noise produced from the wireless power transfer coil while receiving wireless power from the power transmitting device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields).
However, Larsson is vague in its disclosure of having one or more contacts electrically coupled to the magnetic structure.
Russell corrects this vagueness by teaching that a PCB may have electrical contacts capable of being wired to components of wireless power (Par. [0035]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the invention to have combined the teaching of Russell of using a PCB with electrical contacts capable of being wired to the components of wireless power with the known magnetic alignment systems with NFC for electronic devices of Larsson as doing so would have yielded the known predictable result of a safely wired circuit.
Further it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to safely wire the necessary components together.
In regard to claim 15: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 14, wherein the electromagnetic shielding layer (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields) comprises: a flexible substrate (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. flexible PCB) as well as a plurality of conductive traces formed within the flexible substrate (Fig. 56) and electrically coupled to the one or more contacts (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. as improved by Russell).
In regard to claim 16: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of conductive traces are electrically coupled to a ground of the power receive device (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 1200, and 5500 i.e. cell phones use internal common ground for safety).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 17: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 14, including the magnetic structure (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields).
However Modified Larsson is vague in its disclosure of the magnetic structure being electrically coupled to the one or more contacts via conductive adhesive or conductive spring structures.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have selected a conductive adhesive for connecting the conductor to the magnetic structure, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different connection method like a conductive spring structures.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 18: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 14 including one or more contacts.
However, Modified Larsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more contacts comprises a plurality of contacts that are evenly spaced out along a periphery of the electromagnetic shielding layer.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have duplicated the working parts of the circuit since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 19: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 14 including one or more contacts (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. as improved by Russell).
However, Modified Larsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more contacts comprise a conductive ring on a surface of the electromagnetic shielding layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have spaced the contacts around in a conductive ring since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 20: (Original)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 14, wherein the electromagnetic shielding layer (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Items 5570 and 1228 or 5103 & par. [0280] i.e. shielding from AC electric fields) comprises: a flexible substrate (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. flexible PCB); and a plurality of conductive traces formed within the flexible substrate (Fig. 56).
However Modified Larsson is vague in its disclosure of wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of conductive traces are coupled to the one or more contacts and wherein a second portion of the plurality of conductive traces are electrically floating.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have selected a first portion of the plurality of conductive traces to be coupled to the one or more contacts and wherein a second portion of the plurality of conductive traces are electrically floating, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different arrangement of connectors.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson (WO2021/061647A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2021/0057938).
In regard to claim 21: (New)
Modified Larsson further discloses the power receiving device of claim 1, wherein the conductor is a flexible circuit (Figs. 12A, 12b, and 55-61, Item 5602 & Par. [0295] i.e. flexible PCB).
However, Modified Larsson is vague in its disclosure of the conductor having a first end electrically coupled to the magnetic structure via conductive adhesive and a second end electrically coupled to the electrical contact via conductive adhesive or a ferrite bead.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have selected a conductive adhesive for connecting the conductor to the magnetic structure, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a different connection method like a ferrite bead on both ends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claims 1-7 and 21 Applicant argued that the Larsson reference fails to show or suggest the amendment made to claim 1 specifically, “wherein the magnetic structure comprises one or more of ferrite and nanocrystalline alloy sheets”. Examiner disagrees with this argument and has clarified the citations above to show how the Larsson reference teaches the amended claim limitations. For these reasons claims 1-7 and 21 are still rejected.
In regard to claim 3 Applicant has argued that the scope of claim 3 goes beyond that of design choice because Applicants specification teaches that the use of ferrite beads could be used to suppress unwanted harmonics. Examiner disagrees with this argument because as of now claim 3 depends off of claim 1 which is rejected and Examiner maintains the original rejection of claims 1-7 and 21. Applicant may amend claim 1 to include the limitations of claims 3.
In regard to claim 4 Applicant has argued that the scope of claim 4 is not taught. Examiner disagrees with this argument because as of now claim 4 depends off of claim 1 which is rejected and Examiner maintains the original rejection of claims 1-7 and 21. Applicant may amend claim 1 to include the limitations of claims 4.
In regard to claims 8-12 Applicant argued that the Larsson reference fails to show or suggest the amendment made to claim 8 specifically, “wherein the magnetic structure comprises one or more of ferrite and nanocrystalline alloy sheets”. Further that the teaching of Russell as combined with Larsson fails to teach electrical contacts being connectable to a conductive portion of the housing. Examiner disagrees with this argument and has clarified the citations above to show how the Larsson reference and Russell reference teaches the amended claim limitations. For these reasons claims 8-12 are still rejected.
In regard to claims 14-20 Applicant argued that the Larsson reference fails to show or suggest the amendment made to claim 14 specifically, “wherein the magnetic structure comprises one or more of ferrite and nanocrystalline alloy sheets”. Examiner disagrees with this argument and has clarified the citations above to show how the Larsson reference teaches the amended claim limitations. For these reasons claims 14-20 are still rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. *Please see attached form PTO-892*.
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 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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at (571)2703684. 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
5/26/2026
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights