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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III: Claims 12-21, drawn to a walkable power transmitter and species a. directed to claims 13-16, 19-21 in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of the limitations of Group III would require review and search of the limitations of Group I claims and that the restriction’s “characterization of claim scope is based on the gist of the claims and not the claim limitations themselves” (Remarks, pg.2). This is not found persuasive because the scope of Group III’s “walkable power transmitter” is distinct and does not overlap in scope with that of Group I’s “wearable wireless power receiver”. A walkable power transmitter is clearly different in scope and structure from a receiver-they are two different halves of a complete system. For example, Group I’s claims require the carrier substrate to be configured to be adapted to footwear of a person while Group III’s walkable power transmitter is configured to adapt to a surface of a floor walkable by a person. The scope of the carrier substrate in Group I is entirely different from that of Group III. Group I’s electrically conductive material forms a receiver coil while Group III’s conductive material forms a transmitter coil. These coils are used for different purposes and are located in different locations. In the preliminary amendment, the applicant incorrectly amended the shielding material in Group III to read the same as Group I. Group III’s shielding material (that corresponds to Fig.11b, 508.b) has its shielding material nearer to the floor rather than “nearer to the lower limb of the person…” as claimed. Accordingly, Group III’s shielding material is distinct and does not overlap in scope with that of Group I. While the restriction is deemed proper between Groups I and III, the examiner has herein withdrawn the species restriction tied to Group III. Therefore, elected Group III, claims 12-21 will be examined and claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 22 have been withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper in part and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The preliminary amendment, filed 1/16/25, amended claim 12 to recite “A walkable power transmitter comprising: …a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate that is nearer to the lower limb of the person and configured to shield the person from at least a portion of the electromagnetic field.” As shown in fig.11B and further discussed in applicant’s pg-pub, pars [0136, 0138], the shielding material (508.b) of the walkable transmitter is mounted on the opposite side of carrier substrate (1104) nearer to the floor noting that the carrier substrate 1104 is adapted to the surface of the floor. The claim language, instead, appears to be alluding to the shielding material (106.b) of the wearable wireless receiver shown in fig.11a configured to shield the person (see pg-pub, par [0119]). That is, there is no written description for the walkable transmitter to have a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate that is nearer to the lower limb of the person… as this language is clearly directed to the wearable wireless power receiver instead of the walkable transmitter.
The preliminary amendment, filed 1/16/25, added new claim 19 which recites “The walkable power transmitter… wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be removably attached to a bottom part of footwear of the person.” There is no written description for aforementioned language. Applicant’s pg-pub, par [0043], clearly states that “In an exemplary implementation of the wearable wireless power receiver, the carrier substrate with the mounted electrically conductive material and with or without the shielding material is formed to be removably attached to a bottom part of a shoe”. Therefore, claim 19 lacks written description support as the walkable power transmitter is not disclosed as being removable attached to a bottom part of footwear.
The preliminary amendment, filed 1/16/25, added new claim 20 which recites “The walkable power transmitter… wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded into an outsole of footwear of the person.” There is no written description for aforementioned language. Applicant’s pg-pub, par [0041], clearly states that the “wearable wireless power receiver, the carrier substance…is formed to be embedded into an outsole of a shoe.” Therefore, claim 20 lacks written description support as applicant’s disclosure does not identify the walkable power transmitter as being embedded into an outsole of footwear.
Claims 13-18 and 21 depend on claim 12 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 12.
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 12-21 are 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.
Claim 12 recites the walkable power transmitter includes “a carrier substrate configured to adapt to a surface of a floor”, “an electrically conductive material mounted on the carrier substrate and that is away from a lower limb of the person” and then recites “a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate that is nearer to the lower limb of the person and configured to shield the person…” It is unclear how a carrier substrate adapted to a surface of a floor would have a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate that is nearer to the lower limb of the person. That is, the claim requires the carrier substrate to be attached to the surface of the floor but then requires the shielding material (mounted on the substrate) to be nearer to the lower limb (i.e., to be located at a lower limb of a person). The carrier substrate of a walkable transmitter cannot both be attached to a surface of the floor and be located with the shielding material nearer to the lower limb of a person (Further support can be found in applicant’s disclosure at pars [0136, 0139]). For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood, namely that the shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate is nearer to the floor.
Claim 19 recites “…wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be removably attached to a bottom part of footwear of the person.” It is unclear how the carrier substrate that is defined in claim 12 as being “configured to adapt to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person” is being removably attached to a bottom part of footwear of the person in claim 19. Claim 19 as currently presented is incongruent with claim 12 and it is not possible to have the carrier substrate of the transmitter both adapted to a surface of the floor that a person is walking on and also being removably attached to a bottom part of footwear. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 20 recites “…wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded into an outsole of footwear of the person.” It is unclear how the carrier substrate that is defined in claim 12 as being “configured to adapt to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person” is being embedded into an outsole of footwear of the person as in claim 20. Claim 20 is clearly incongruent with claim 12 and it is not possible to have the carrier substrate of the transmitter both adapted to a surface of the floor that a person is walking on and also be embedded into an outsole of the person’s footwear. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 13-18 and 21 depend on claim 12 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 12.
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) 12-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019.0052111 A1).
Regarding Claim 12,
Wu (figs.4, 8, 9) teaches a walkable power transmitter comprising:
a power source (440, par [20]);
a mat (410) configured to adapt to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person (figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and related discussion; 410 is adapted to a surface of a floor…);
an electrically conductive material that is away from a lower limb of the person and forming at least one transmitter coil (420, see figs.4, 9 pars [20, 23] and related discussion; see the electrically conductive material making up transmitter coil 420 away from a lower limb of the person), configured to transmit an electromagnetic field for power at least one of a first wearable electronic device (abstract, pars [20, 23, 32] and related discussion; wearable electronic device read on by 1000 and/or 1000, 101. Note: the wearable electronic device is outside of the scope of the claim’s “walkable power transmitter”) or a second wearable electronic device (written in the alternative-not required to be read into the claim.
Wu does not explicitly disclose a carrier substrate, the electrically conductive material forming the at least one transmitter coil mounted on the carrier substrate, and a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate.
Riehl (figs.1-2, 4), however, teaches a carrier substrate (405, par [38] carrier substrate read on by “circuit board”), the electrically conductive material forming the at least one transmitter coil (230, pars [27, 38]) mounted on the carrier substrate (see fig.4, pars [27, 38]; 230 mounted on the top surface of 405), and a shielding material (440; par [38]; ferromagnetic shield) mounted on the carrier substrate (par [38]; 440 mounted on the opposite side of the substrate 405).
In the combination, Wu’s floor mat integrated with a transmitter coil would be modified to further include a carrier substrate on which the transmitter coil is mounted on the top surface of the substrate facing the person and a shielding material mounted on the bottom surface of the carrier substrate nearer to the surface of the floor in comparison to the transmitter coil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the Wu to that of Riehl. The motivation would have been because the carrier substrate keeps the coil precisely positioned and prevents movement, which helps in maintaining consistent coupling with the receiver. The motivation for having a shielding material mounted on the carrier substrate nearer to the surface of the floor is to reduce electromagnetic interference with other components below the substrate and to concentrate magnetic field near the transmitter coil. It is further noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the shielding material nearer to the surface of the floor in order to shield components below including the floor from magnetic field produced by the transmitter coil.
Alternatively, Riehl (figs.1-2, 4) teaches a power transmitter comprising: a power source (par [26]); a carrier substrate (405) configured to adapt to a surface (see figs.1, 4; pars [25-27, 38]; the substrate 405 is configured to adapt to a surface where casing 105 of the transmitter is located); an electrically conductive material mounted on the carrier substrate (405) forming the at least one transmitter coil (230, see fig.4, pars [27, 38]; conductive material forming transmitter coil 230 mounted on the top surface of 405), configured to transmit an electromagnetic field for powering at least one of a first electronic device (110, pars [25, 27]); and a shielding material (440; par [38]; ferromagnetic shield) mounted on the carrier substrate (par [38]; 440 mounted on the opposite side of the substrate 405) that is nearer to the surface (see figs.1, 4; the shielding material 440 is on the bottom surface of the circuit board making it nearer to the surface in comparison to the transmitter coil 230 on the top surface of the circuit board).
Riehl does not explicitly disclose a power transmitter adapted to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person, the electrically conductive material forming the transmitter coil is away from a lower limb of the person and the at least one electronic device is a wearable device.
Wu (figs.4, 8, 9), however, teaches a power transmitter adapted to a surface of a floor that is walkable by a person (figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and related discussion; the wireless power transmitter 420 is adapted to a surface of a floor), the electrically conductive material forming the transmitter coil is away from a lower limb of the person (see figs.4, 9 pars [20, 23] and related discussion; see the electrically conductive material making up transmitter coil 420 away from a lower limb of the person), the at least one electronic device is a wearable device (abstract, pars [20, 23, 32] and related discussion; wearable electronic device read on by 1000 and/or 1000, 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Riehl’s wireless power transmitter so that it is adapted to a surface of a floor, the transmitter coil being away from a lower limb of the person, the electronic device is wearable and the shielding material is nearer to the surface of the floor. The motivation would have been to implement Riehl’s wireless power transmitter in a floor mat application for wireless charging of a virtual reality host system as discussed within Wu further noting that the location of the shielding material being nearer to the surface of the floor in comparison to the transmitter coil would have been an obvious design choice to in order to shield components below the substrate including the floor from magnetic field produced by the transmitter coil.
Regarding Claim 13,
Wu in view of Riehl or Riehl in view of Wu teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and further teaches wherein the shielding material is further configured to shield the surface and the power transmitter from each other (Wu, fig.9, pars [20, 23], Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38]; in the combination, Wu’s mat 410 including transmitter 420 on the surface of the floor is modified, as taught by Riehl, so that the transmitter coil is on the top surface of the substrate facing the person and the shielding material is on the bottom surface of the substrate nearer to the surface of the floor as opposed to the transmitter coil on the top surface of the circuit board and would be “configured to”/capable of shielding the surface and the power transmitter including the transmitter coil from each other. Note: this is the same configuration as shown in applicant’s fig.11b- the shielding material 508.b is at the bottom surface of the substrate 1104 nearer to the surface of the floor).
Regarding Claim 14,
Wu in view of Riehl or Riehl in view of Wu teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and further teaches wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded in a mat (Wu, figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38]; Wu teaches a floor mat embedded transmitter coil and Riehl teaches the transmitter coil would be mounted on the carrier substrate- thus, Wu would be modified its mat embedded with the transmitter coil mounted on the carrier substrate).
Regarding Claim 15,
Wu in view of Riehl or Riehl in view of Wu teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and teaches wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to: extend over a first region of a first foot of the person (Wu, figs.4, 5, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38]; Wu teaches a first region where a person’s foot is on the floor mat that includes the transmitter coil. Riehl teaches the transmitter coil is mounted the carrier substrate. Thus, in the combination, the carrier substrate that has the transmitter coil mounted on it would obviously extend over a first region of a first foot of the person that receives wireless power from the transmitter coil mounted on the substrate); and extend over a second region of a second foot of the person (Wu, figs.4, 5, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38]; Wu teaches a second region where a person’s foot is on the floor mat that includes the transmitter coil. Riehl teaches the transmitter coil is mounted the carrier substrate. Thus, in the combination, the carrier substrate that has the transmitter coil mounted on it would obviously extend over a second region of a second foot of the person that receives wireless power from the transmitter coil mounted on the substrate).
Regarding Claim 18,
Wu in view of Riehl or Riehl in view of Wu teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and further teaches wherein the at least one transmitter coil is further configured to generate at least two charging hotspots (Wu, figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riel as discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above; Wu teaches the structure of the “transmitter coil” and is thus configured to generate at least two charging hotspots noting that the claim does not structurally distinguish how the charging hotspots are generated. Wu has the structure of a transmitter coil and is configured to generate at least two charging hotspots (i.e., locations where effective coupling occurs) corresponding to two spatially separated power transfer regions of the left and right shoe, each having two receiver coils) for powering at least one of the at least the first wearable electronic device (pars [20, 23]) or the second wearable electronic device.
Examiner Note: The claim requires two charging hotspots for powering only one wearable electronic device, but does not structurally say how this is achieved. A generic transmitter coil is taught by the prior and thus would be “configured to” generate two charging hotspots.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 recites the walkable power transmitter’s “carrier substrate is further configured to be removably attached to a bottom part of footwear of the person.” This language presents a great deal of confusion and uncertainty regarding the proper placement of the carrier substrate as claim 12 specifically requires the carrier substrate to be adapted to a surface of a floor while claim 19 requires the carrier substrate to be removably attached to a bottom part of the person’s footwear. Claim 19 is incongruent with claim 12 and appears that it should be directed to a wearable wireless receiver instead of a walkable power transmitter (see applicant’s disclosure at par [0043]). As such, it would be improper to apply prior art.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 recites the walkable power transmitter’s “carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded into an outsole of footwear of the person.” This language presents a great deal of confusion and uncertainty regarding the proper placement of the carrier substrate as claim 12 specifically requires the carrier substrate to be adapted to a surface of a floor while claim 20 requires the carrier substrate to be embedded into an outsole of a person’s footwear. Claim 20 is incongruent with claim 12 and appears that it should be directed to a wearable wireless receiver instead of a walkable power transmitter (see applicant’s disclosure at par [0041]). As such, it would be improper to apply prior art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019.0052111 A1) as applied to claim 12 and in further view of Singh et al. (2018/0343038 A1).
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and the combination further teaches wherein the carrier substrate comprises a main plane (Riehl, fig.4, par [38]). The combination does not explicitly disclose substrate extensions located at corners of the carrier substrate wherein the substrate extensions extend at a height with respect to the main plane, and wherein the at least one transmitter coil is formed on the carrier substrate and on the substrate extensions.
Singh (fig.10B), however, teaches it is known in the art for a substrate (72) to have substrate extensions (extensions 74) located at corners (76, 78) of the carrier substrate (see fig.10B, par [66]) wherein the substrate extensions (74) extend at a height with respect to the main plane (see fig.10B, par [66]), and wherein the at least one transmitter coil (12) is formed on the carrier substrate and on the substrate extensions (fig.10B, par [66]; at least a portion 14 of inductor 12 is formed on the center main plane of substrate 72 and on the sides of substrate extensions 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Singh. The motivation would have been to ensure an increased amount of magnetic fields emanating from the transmitter coil reaches the receiver (Singh, par [67]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019.0052111 A1) as applied to claim 12 and in further view of Fujita et al. (2015/0332849 A1).
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and the combination further teaches wherein the carrier substrate comprises a main plane (Riehl, fig.4, par [38]). The combination does not explicitly disclose substrate extensions located at corners of the carrier substrate wherein the substrate extensions extend at a height with respect to the main plane, and wherein the at least one transmitter coil is formed on the carrier substrate and on the substrate extensions.
Fujita (fig.5B), however, teaches it is known in the art for a substrate (1) to have substrate extensions located at corners of the carrier substrate (see fig.5B, bending portions at the end of 1) wherein the substrate extensions extend at a height with respect to the main plane (see fig.5B), and where in the at least one transmitter coil (3) is formed on the carrier substrate and on the substrate extensions (fig.5b, pars [32-33]; 3 is formed on the center main plane and on the substrate extensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Fujita. The motivation would have been to increase the density of the magnetic flux (Fujita, pars [32-33]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019.0052111 A1) as applied to claim 12 and in further view of Yokoyama et al. (2023/0006480 A1).
Regarding Claim 17,
Wu in view of Riehl or Riehl in view of Wu teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12 and further teaches a mat comprising the carrier substrate (Wu, figs.4, 9, pars [20, 23] and Riehl, figs.1, 4, pars [25, 38]; in the combination, Wu’s mat that includes a transmitter coil would be modified to include the carrier substrate of Riehl), wherein the power source is attached to an outside surface of the mat (Wu, see figs.4, 9; power source 440 is attached to an outside surface of the mat).
The combination teaches a mat. The combination does not explicitly teach the mat is a flexible mat configured to be rolled or folded.
Yokoyama, however, teaches it is known in the art for the mat to be a flexible mat (100) configured to be rolled or folded (par [52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Yokoyama. The motivation would have been in order to make the mat portable and easier to carry.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (2019/0052111 A1) in view of Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) or in the alternative Riehl (2016/0261137 A1) in view of Wu et al. (2019.0052111 A1) as applied to claim 12 and in further view of Waffenschmidt et al. (2010/0328044 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 12. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the carrier substrate is further configured to be embedded into the floor.
Waffenschmidt, however, teaches it is known for the carrier substrate to be either constructed within a floor mat or embedded into the floor (pars [65, 112]; the inductive power pad that includes the substrate the transmitter coil 120 is on is embedded within the floor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Waffenschmidt. The motivation would have been the obvious placement of the carrier substrate noting that Waffenschmidt teaches the obviousness of having the carrier substrate either within the floor mat or within the floor and one skilled in the art would have obviously selected the substrate to be embedded into the floor according to the intended design and use of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836