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
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US 20170158064)
Re Claims 1 and 9; Yasuda discloses a wireless power supply device for switch driving of a medium voltage system: The YASUDA patent describes a "contactless power supply system" for a "running mobile structure," such as electric or plug-in hybrid cars (0001, 0006). These vehicles typically operate on medium voltage systems.
comprising: a high frequency conversion unit for converting input power into AC power: The patent describes a high-frequency power source 40, which includes an AC/DC converter 41 and an inverter 42 to generate a high-frequency alternating current from a direct current (0055). This unit functions as a high frequency conversion unit.
a feed coil connected to the high frequency conversion unit 10 to generate AC power into an AC magnetic field: The patent refers to "primary power supply transformers" 1, 2, 3, and 4 (0015, 0050) as being the feed coils. These are supplied with a high-frequency alternating current by the high-frequency power source 40 via a cable and generate an AC magnetic field.
a collector coil spaced apart from the feed coil by a predetermined distance to generate AC power by an AC magnetic field radiated from the feed coil: The patent discloses a "secondary power supply transformer" 20 (collector coil) mounted on a vehicle that is supplied with power from the primary power supply transformers (feed coils) in a contactless manner (0017, 0050). The primary transformers are "separately installed with a spacing along the driving route" (0017) and
a power conversion unit connected to the collector coil to rectify and convert AC power into DC power: The patent discloses a "rectifier which rectifies an alternating current received by the secondary power Supply transformer for charging" an electric storage element 53 (0017, 0056). This rectification and charging process is the function of a power conversion unit.
wherein the first and second insulating structure comprises: a first molding portion that surrounds the feed coil 20 and the collector coil 40 with an insulating material: The description of the primary and secondary transformers as coils with a core and wire implies that they are enclosed in some form of housing or molding for protection and insulation and
a first conductive coating layer applied by a conductive material on a surface of the first molding portion: The patent explicitly mentions an "aluminum shield plate 34 for shielding from a leakage of magnetic flux" (0051), which serves as a conductive coating layer. The motivation for this is to contain the magnetic field and prevent interference with other electronic components.
The patent describes the primary power supply transformers as having a double-sided coil around which a wire is wound (0017, 0051).
Yasuda does not disclose a first and second insulating structure surrounding the feed coil
However, it is an obvious design choice to enclose these electrical components in an insulating structure to prevent short circuits, protect the components from environmental factors like dirt and moisture, and ensure user safety.
Re Claim 2; Yasuda discloses a coil including an "H-shaped ferrite core" (0004) where a wire is wound around the portion corresponding to a transverse bar, and the parallel portions at both sides work as magnetic poles. An H-shaped core is functionally similar to an I-shaped core for winding a coil and generating magnetic poles. and
a first and second coil wound around the first and second core: The patent explicitly states that a "wire 11 is wound around the portion of the H-shaped core corresponding to a transverse bar" (0004).
wherein the first and second core is configured with one of a ferrite core, an iron core, and a magnetic powder core: The patent mentions the use of a "plate-like ferrite core" (0003) and an "H-shaped core" which is also described as a ferrite core (0004). The motivation for using such cores is to guide the magnetic flux and improve the efficiency of power transfer.
and
wherein the first and second coil is configured with a Litz wire or magnet wire: The patent refers to the coil as a "wire 11" (0003).
Yasuda does not disclose a first and second core having an 'I'-shape and use of a specific type of wire like Litz or magnet wire
However, it would have been obvious to have used is 'I'-shape and use of a specific type of wire like Litz since an obvious design choice for such a coil configuration to reduce skin effect at high frequencies, thereby improving the efficiency of the coil.
Re Claim 3; Yasuda discloses wherein a gap between the feed coil and the collector coil is 2 cm.
a gap between the feed coil and the collector coil is 2 cm: The patent discloses a test where the gap between the primary power supply transformers and the secondary power supply transformer is 70 mm (0072). This demonstrates the device is designed to operate with a gap between the coils. The motivation for specifying a particular gap is to optimize the wireless power transfer for a given application, which is a design parameter that a person skilled in the art would be motivated to choose from a range of possibilities.
Re Claim 4; Yasuda discloses a first and second extractor for connecting the feed coil and the high frequency conversion unit, and connecting the collector coil and the power conversion unit: The patent describes the high-frequency power source supplying current to the primary transformers "via a cable" (0015) and a rectifier circuit receiving current from the secondary transformer (0017). These connections are shown in the diagrams, such as FIG. 1, and would be cables or "extractors."
is molded into the first molding portion of the first and second insulating structure: The patent describes the system components, and it is a matter of obvious design to mold these connecting cables into the insulating structure of the device. The motivation for this is to provide a robust, waterproof, and protected electrical connection that is not easily damaged or disconnected.
Re Claim 5; Yasuda discloses a second molding portion that surrounds a first molding portion of the collector coil to extend the second extractor of the collector coil: The patent describes a system where the secondary transformer is connected to a rectifier circuit (0017). The extension of the extractor from the coil to the next component is an obvious design element. The motivation is to provide a complete and protected path for the electrical wiring.
and wherein a surface of the second molding portion comprises a second conductive coating layer formed by applying a conductive material: The patent discloses an aluminum shield plate 34 for shielding from magnetic flux leakage (0051). This shield plate functions as a conductive coating layer. The motivation for applying such a layer is to improve electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) by reducing radiated emissions and protecting the system from external interference.
Re Claim 6; Yasuda discloses wherein the second molding portion is further provided with a support member for supporting the second extractor of the collector coil.
a support member for supporting the second extractor of the collector coil: The patent describes a system for a "running mobile structure" (0001). To ensure durability and reliability on a moving vehicle, it is an obvious design choice to include a support member for the electrical connections (extractors) to the coils. The motivation is to prevent stress, vibration-induced failure, and damage to the electrical connections.
Re Claim 7; Yasuda discloses a third molding portion connected to the second molding portion and formed along a length of the second extractor of the collector coil: The patent describes a system for a running vehicle, which requires durability. The use of additional molding portions to protect and insulate the electrical connections (extractors) is a logical and obvious design choice for such a system. The motivation is to provide additional protection, strain relief, and a robust mounting structure for the extended electrical wiring.
Re Claims 8 and 10; Yasuda discloses wherein an end of the third molding portion is further provided with a copper plate member to expose the second extractor of the collector coil.
a copper plate member to expose the second extractor of the collector coil: The patent describes electrical connections between the collector coil and the power conversion unit (0017). A copper plate member is a standard and obvious design choice for an exposed electrical contact point at the end of an insulated extractor. The motivation is to provide a reliable, low-resistance electrical connection point for connecting the device to the rest of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Claims 1 and 9 – “first molding portion” and “first conductive coating layer”
The applicant argues that Yasuda does not teach a “first molding portion that surrounds the feed coil and the collector coil with an insulating material” and that the Office Action was speculative in inferring any molding/housing.
Yasuda expressly discloses that both primary and secondary transformers are double-sided coils with cores and windings, used in a vehicle environment and on the ground:
“The primary power supply transformers 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the secondary power supply transformer 20 each include a double-sided coil having an H-shaped core around of which a wire 33 is wound around a portion between magnetic poles 31 and 32, and an aluminum shield plate 34 for shielding from a leakage of magnetic flux which occurs on the sides of the double-sided coil opposite to the faces opposing the other coil.”
Yasuda further explains that the system is for “a running mobile structure” and that the transformers are installed on a driving route and on a vehicle. In such an automotive, outdoor, high-frequency power environment, enclosing coils and their cores in an insulating molding or housing is a well-known, routine practice to:
Electrically insulate high-voltage/high-frequency windings from the environment and from users.
Mechanically protect the windings and core from vibration, impact, and debris.
Environmentally protect against moisture, dust, and corrosion.
Even if Yasuda does not explicitly recite “molding” or “potting,” the use of an insulating housing or molding around such coils is an obvious design measure that a person of ordinary skill in the art would implement as a matter of routine engineering, consistent with KSR’s recognition that “a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
The applicant’s argument that “nothing in Yasuda indicates that dirt, moisture or the safety of the user is an issue to be corrected” is not persuasive. Yasuda’s system is explicitly for a vehicle and ground-mounted infrastructure, which inherently raises issues of safety, environmental exposure, and durability. The law does not require the prior art to expressly identify each design concern; it is sufficient that the modification is within the ordinary skill and yields predictable benefits.
Regarding the “first conductive coating layer applied by a conductive material on a surface of the first molding portion,” Yasuda discloses an aluminum shield plate 34 used to shield leakage magnetic flux on the side opposite the coupling face. A conductive shield plate on or adjacent to the outer surface of the coil assembly is functionally equivalent to a conductive coating layer applied to an insulating molding: both are conductive layers disposed on the outside of an insulating body surrounding the coil, used to control fields and provide shielding. Adapting Yasuda’s discrete aluminum plate into a conductive coating on the molding surface is a straightforward design variation, well within ordinary skill, to conform to packaging constraints or manufacturing preferences (e.g., spraying, plating, or laminating a conductive layer on a molded body instead of using a separate plate).
Thus, even if Yasuda does not literally disclose the exact “first molding portion” and “first conductive coating layer” language, it would have been obvious to:
Enclose the primary and secondary coils in an insulating molding/housing; and
Implement the aluminum shield as a conductive layer on that molding surface,
to achieve the same shielding and protection functions already taught by Yasuda, with predictable results. The rejection is therefore not speculative but grounded in the nature of the environment (vehicle/ground installation), the disclosed shielding plate, and routine packaging practices.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 is maintained.
2. Claim 3 – gap size as a design/result-effective variable
Claim 3 recites a specific gap (e.g., 2 cm) between the feed and collector coils. The applicant argues that Yasuda only discloses a 70 mm gap and does not recognize gap size as a result-effective variable.
Yasuda explicitly studies and reports the effect of spacing and positioning on output and efficiency:
“In this test, variations in the secondary output and in the efficiency were measured when multiple primary power supply transformers 61, 62, and 63 were connected in series and a secondary power supply transformer 70 opposing the primary power supply transformers was moved in position while the spacing between the primary power supply transformers was changed…”
“The primary power supply transformers and the secondary power supply transformer each include a double-sided coil having an H-shaped core around which a wire is wound, with magnetic poles in length of 300 mm and distanced by 250 mm. They are arranged in the same orientation as in FIG. 1.”
Yasuda then presents FIGS. 10 and 11 showing how output and efficiency vary with spacing and position. This is precisely an investigation of how geometric parameters (including gaps and spacing) affect performance i.e., gap/spacing is treated as a result-effective variable. Once a parameter is recognized as affecting performance, routine optimization of that parameter (e.g., selecting a different gap such as 2 cm instead of 70 mm) to meet particular design constraints (voltage level, insulation requirements, mechanical packaging, or desired coupling) is considered obvious.
Moreover, the claimed 2 cm gap is within the general range of coil-to-coil separations used in wireless power systems and does not reflect a qualitatively different regime or unexpected result. Adjusting the gap to a smaller value to increase coupling or to meet insulation standards is a predictable design choice.
Therefore, in view of Yasuda’s explicit teaching that spacing and position affect output and efficiency, gap size is a result-effective variable, and selecting a 2 cm gap would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. The rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
3. Claims 5–7 – second/third molding portions and support member
Claim 5 – “second molding portion … extends to the second extractor”
The applicant argues that connecting the secondary transformer to a rectifier circuit does not teach or suggest a “second molding portion that surrounds a first molding portion of the collector coil to extend to the second extractor of the collector coil.”
Yasuda discloses that the secondary transformer 20 is connected to a rectifier circuit 51 and charger circuit 52 on a vehicle, forming part of a powertrain including an inverter, motor, and battery. In a vehicular, high-frequency power system, it is standard practice to route the coil leads (extractors) through molded or potted structures that:
Extend from the coil body to the connector or terminal region.
Provide insulation, strain relief, and mechanical support for the leads.
Protect the leads from vibration and environmental exposure.
Providing a “second molding portion” that surrounds the first molding portion and extends along the extractor to the connection point is a routine packaging refinement to integrate the coil body and its lead-out region into a single molded assembly. This is a predictable design choice to improve robustness and manufacturability, not a departure from the teachings of Yasuda.
Thus, while Yasuda does not use the term “second molding portion,” the claimed structure is an obvious implementation detail of how to package and route the coil leads in the vehicular environment Yasuda already teaches. The rejection of claim 5 is maintained.
Claim 6 – support member for the second extractor
The applicant challenges the rationale that it would be obvious to include a support member for the electrical connections to prevent stress and vibration-induced failure.
Yasuda’s system is explicitly for “a running mobile structure” and for primary transformers installed on a driving route. In such an environment, vibration, mechanical shock, and cable movement are inherent concerns. Providing a support member for the extractor (lead) of the collector coil e.g., a molded strain-relief, bracket, or integrated support within the molding is a conventional solution to these known problems.
The claimed “support member for supporting the second extractor of the collector coil” is thus a predictable, routine mechanical feature that a person of ordinary skill would include when implementing Yasuda’s system in a real vehicle to ensure durability and reliability of the electrical connections. The law does not require Yasuda to explicitly state “vibration-induced failure must be prevented by a support member”; it is sufficient that the problem is inherent in the environment and that the claimed solution is a known, straightforward measure.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Claim 7 – third molding portion along the length of the extractor
The applicant similarly argues that nothing in Yasuda suggests that providing a “third molding portion connected to the second molding portion and formed along the length of the second extractor” would necessarily achieve protection, strain relief, or robust mounting.
Again, Yasuda’s context is a vehicular, outdoor, high-frequency power system. Extending molding along the length of a lead (extractor) to form a continuous protective and supporting structure is a common design practice in power electronics and automotive connectors (e.g., over-molded cables, molded strain-relief boots). Connecting this “third molding portion” to the second molding portion around the coil body is a predictable way to create an integrated, robust assembly.
The claimed third molding portion does not introduce a new function beyond known goals of protection and strain relief; it merely specifies the extent and connection of the molding along the lead. Such geometric refinements are within routine design optimization and do not confer patentable distinction over Yasuda.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 is maintained.
4. Dependent claims 2, 4, 8, and 10
The applicant asserts that claims 2–8 and 10 are patentable by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 and 9. Because the rejections of independent claims 1 and 9 are maintained for the reasons above, the dependent claims remain unpatentable absent additional, separately argued limitations. To the extent any dependent claim includes further features not addressed here, those features are considered obvious in view of Yasuda and the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill, as set forth in the prior Office Action.
5. Conclusion
In summary:
The “first molding portion” and “first conductive coating layer” are obvious packaging and shielding implementations of Yasuda’s double-sided coils and aluminum shield plate in a vehicular, outdoor environment.
Gap size is a result-effective variable in Yasuda, and selecting a 2 cm gap is a routine optimization.
The second and third molding portions and the support member for the extractor are predictable mechanical refinements for durability, insulation, and strain relief in the running-vehicle context explicitly taught by Yasuda.
Accordingly, the §103 rejections of claims 1–10 over Yasuda are maintained.
Conclusion
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 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/
10/20/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836