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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 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.
With claims 1, 7 and 13. Claim 1 recites "at least ONE electrical component" and then the amended language requires a plurality in series. It can't be both one and two+.
“at least one of: components with capacitive properties including one or more inductive and capacitive properties” This phrase is structurally broken and ambiguous in multiple ways:
Ambiguity A: “at least one of: components with capacitive properties including one or more inductive and capacitive properties”
This reads as if: “components with capacitive properties” includes “one or more inductive and capacitive properties” This creates logical conflict:
A component cannot simultaneously be “capacitive” and “inductive” unless it is a resonant LC element, but the claim does not say that.
The grammar makes it unclear whether: the component must have both inductive and capacitive properties, the component may have either, or the component is a capacitor that “includes inductive properties” (which is nonsensical).
Indefinite because a POSITA cannot determine the scope of the required electrical properties.
Ambiguity B: “at least one of:” with only one option the phrase “at least one of:” normally introduces a list of alternatives. Here, there is only one item in the list. This is a classic §112(b) problem because: “at least one of X” is meaningless when X is singular. It is unclear whether the applicant intended multiple alternatives but deleted them.
Ambiguity C: “components with capacitive properties including one or more inductive and capacitive properties” The phrase “including … capacitive properties” is circular: “capacitive properties including capacitive properties” This is self‑referential and ridiculous, making the scope unclear.
1.2 “interconnecting the adjacent electrically conductive plates” The term “interconnecting” is indefinite because: It is unclear whether the component must form an electrical connection, mechanical connection, or both.
The claim later states the plates are connected to a resonant circuit, which implies electrical connectivity, but the claim does not specify whether the “interconnecting” component is part of that circuit.
A POSITA cannot determine the exact nature of the required connection.
1.3 – “the plurality of electrically conductive plates is connected to a resonant circuit”
Indefiniteness arises because: It is unclear whether each plate must be connected, or only some plates, or whether the connection is direct or indirect. the claim uses “plurality” but does not specify the subset.
1.4 – “spacing therebetween” The term “spacing” is functional and undefined. No minimum, maximum, or structural meaning is provided. It is unclear whether the spacing is air, dielectric, vacuum, or unspecified.
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(s) 1, 4-6 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverstein (US 5,955,995) in view of White (US 20160370840)
Re Claim 1, 21; Silverstein discloses
An electrode assembly comprising: a plurality of adjacent electrically conductive plates (20 and 22) separated by a spacing therebetween; and
at least one electrical component (56) interconnecting the adjacent electrically conductive plates; wherein the plurality of conductive plates is connected to a resonant circuit. (Fig. 2, 5 and 6 Col. 5 line 5-17)
Silverstein does not disclose two of the adjacent electrically conductive plates being interconnected by at least one of the following: a plurality of components with inductive properties in series, a plurality of components with capacitive properties in series, and one or more components with inductive and capacitive properties;
However White par 33 discloses “Although each couple link has only one capacitor in each couple link as shown in FIG. 2, it is understood that the capacitor may be an equivalent capacitor comprising multiple capacitors in series, parallel, and/or mixture connection.” And it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have either used a single capacitor or multiple capacitors to achieve equivalent capacitance in order to have perform the same function done by the single capacitor or the multiple capacitors.
Re Claim 4, 18; Silverstein discloses
wherein the conductive plates have a circular shape. (Fig. 2)
Silverstein does not disclose the shape is a concentric.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape from a circular to concentric, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component and change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 5; Silverstein discloses
wherein the conductive plates consist of concentric rings or concentric hollow cylinders. (Fig. 2)
Re Claim 6; Silverstein discloses
further comprising an electrical connector electrically connecting each conductive plate to the resonant circuit. (Fig. 2, 5 and 6 Col. 5 line 5-17)
Re Claim 20 and 22, the claim discloses an unelected limitation (inductors in series and capacitor in series with an inductor) because the independent claim provides an option to elect from a group comprising capacitors in series, inductor in series and a combination of inductor in series with a capacitor
Claim(s) 7-17 and 23-26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al (US 2021/0143673) in view of White (US 20160370840)
Re Claim 7, 24; Ahn discloses
An electrode assembly comprising: a plurality of electrically conductive plates (11 and 12) separated by a spacing there between, the plurality of electrically conductive plats being connected to a resonant circuit (the coil, AC and the capacitor);
at least one electrical component (inductor and the capacitor) interconnecting two spaced conductive plates; and
a supporting frame (the table) adapted for maintaining the plurality of conductive plates, wherein the plurality of conductive plates is connected to a resonant circuit. (Fig. 9 and 1)
Ahn does not disclose two of the adjacent electrically conductive plates being interconnected by at least one of the following: a plurality of components with inductive properties in series, a plurality of components with capacitive properties in series, and one or more components with inductive and capacitive properties;
However White par 33 discloses “Although each couple link has only one capacitor in each couple link as shown in FIG. 2, it is understood that the capacitor may be an equivalent capacitor comprising multiple capacitors in series, parallel, and/or mixture connection.” And it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have either used a single capacitor or multiple capacitors to achieve equivalent capacitance in order to have perform the same function done by the single capacitor or the multiple capacitors.
Re Claim 10; Ahn discloses
wherein the plurality of electrical components comprises at least one of the following: a component with inductive properties, a component with capacitive properties, or a component with inductive and capacitive properties. (Fig. 1)
Re Claim 11; Ahn discloses
wherein the conductive plates are arranged as concentric rings. (Fig. 7- 9)
Re Claim 12; Ahn discloses
further comprising an electrical connector electrically connecting each conductive plate the resonant circuit. (Fig. 7- 9)
Re Claim 13; Ahn discloses
a wireless power transfer system comprising: a transmitter including at least one electrode assembly (TX plates 11 and 13); and a receiver including at least one electrode assembly (RX plate 13 and 14);
wherein each electrode assembly comprises: a plurality of adjacent electrically conductive plates (11-14) separated by a spacing (shown but not labelled) therebetween, the plurality of conductive plates being connected to a resonant circuit (inductor with capacitor) adapted to generate a resonant electric field between the transmitter and the receiver to wirelessly transmit power from the transmitter to the receiver via resonant capacitive coupling; and
at least one electrical component interconnecting the adjacent electrically conductive plates. (the capacitors) (Fig. 1)
Silverstein does not disclose two of the adjacent electrically conductive plates being interconnected by at least one of the following: a plurality of components with inductive properties in series, a plurality of components with capacitive properties in series, and one or more components with inductive and capacitive properties;
However White par 33 discloses “Although each couple link has only one capacitor in each couple link as shown in FIG. 2, it is understood that the capacitor may be an equivalent capacitor comprising multiple capacitors in series, parallel, and/or mixture connection.” And it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have either used a single capacitor or multiple capacitors to achieve equivalent capacitance in order to have perform the same function done by the single capacitor or the multiple capacitors.
Re Claim 16; Ahn discloses
wherein the conductive plates of each electrode assembly have a circular shape. (Fig. 11)
Ahn does not disclose the shape is a concentric.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape from a circular to concentric, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component and change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 17; Ahn discloses
wherein the conductive plates of each electrode assembly consist of concentric rings or concentric hollow cylinders. (Fig. 11).
Re Claims 23, 25 and 26, the claim discloses an unelected limitation (inductors in series and capacitor in series with an inductor) because the independent claim provides an option to elect from a group comprising capacitors in series, inductor in series and a combination of inductor in series with a capacitor
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of White.
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
02/20/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836