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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14-18 and 20-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 2020/0169117).
Re Claims 10 and 17 and 20; Okamoto discloses
A wireless power transfer system and a method comprising:
Okamoto discloses a wireless power transfer system (Figs. 1–2).
a transmitter comprising a transmitter coil comprising a plurality of windings (the plurality of windings shown in the Figs);
a transmitter housing (En3) enclosing the transmitter (CL). (Fig. 13)
Okamoto teaches a power transmitting device 100 including transmitting coils CL, CLA, CLB, etc. (Figs. 1–3).
and a module (800) adapted for underwater use comprising a cylindrical housing…
Okamoto teaches an underwater AUV (power receiving device 200) with a cylindrical body (Figs. 14–19).
enclosing a receiver comprising a receiver coil
Okamoto shows the receiving coil CLB located inside the AUV body (Figs. 14–19).
positioned adjacent an inner surface of the cylindrical housing… (Figs. 14).
and radially aligned with the cylindrical housing,
Okamoto’s receiving coils are annular and coaxial with the cylindrical AUV body (Figs. 14–19).
the receiver coil for extracting power from a field generated by the plurality of windings the transmitter coil
Okamoto teaches wireless power transfer via magnetic resonance (Figs. 1–2) when the plurality of windings of transmitter coil at least partially surrounds the cylindrical housing
Okamoto’s underwater charging stands (Figs. 20–25) show the transmitting coil surrounding the AUV body and is radially aligned with the receiver coil.
Okamoto’s coils are coaxially aligned in all embodiments (Figs. 1–3, 8–10)
wherein the transmitter coil is adjacent the inner surface of the transmitter housing and radially aligned with the transmitter housing, and wherein the transmitter coil. (Fig. 13A)
Re Claim 12; Okamoto discloses wherein the transmitter housing (En3) is adapted to receive the cylindrical housing (800) therein, and/or wherein an inner radius of the transmitter housing is greater than an outer radius of the cylindrical housing. (Fig. 13A, Par 0157)
Re Claim 14; Okamoto discloses wherein the windings are positioned adjacent the inner surface of the transmitter housing and radially aligned with the transmitter housing. (Fig. 13A)
Re Claim 15; Okamoto discloses each winding the plurality of windings is positioned adjacent the inner surface of the transmitter housing and radially aligned with the transmitter housing, and wherein the transmitter coil is adapted to transfer power to the receiver when the plurality of windings of the transmitter coil at least partially surrounds the cylindrical housing and is radially aligned with the plurality of windings of the receiver coil. (Fig. 13A)
Re Claim 16; Okamoto discloses further comprising: a lifting arrangement (engines, propellers etc.) for lifting the module from an environment and positioning the cylindrical housing within the transmitter housing. (Par 0175)
Re Claim 18; Okamoto discloses further comprising: detecting, at the receiver, that the transmitter coil at least partially surrounds the cylindrical housing and is radially aligned with the receiver coil. (Par 0219).
Re Claim 21; Okamoto discloses further comprising: a transmitter support for securing the transmitter coil within the transmitter housing. (Fig. 13a, the support is shown but not label)
Re Claim 22; Okamoto discloses wherein the transmitter support comprises grooves, the plurality of windings of the transmitter coil positioned within the grooves. (Fig. 13a, each layer shows a grove holding the coil)
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) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 2020/0169117)
Re Claim 19; Okamoto discloses further comprising: communicating, from the receiver to the transmitter, a parameter of a wireless link between the transmitter and receiver coils; (Par 0089, 97 For example, the information communication unit 250 receives control information from the power transmitting device 100 transmitted to the power receiving device 200 via the coil CL.) and
Okamoto discloses does not disclose received control information from the power transmitting device 100 transmitted to the power receiving device 200 via the coil CL includes transitioning, at the transmitter, from a search mode to a power transfer mode in response to receiving the communicated parameter.
However, because the Okamoto already discloses charging and wireless power transfer, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective fling of the invention to have used the control information to transition from a search mode to a power transfer mode in order to effectively charge the battery when the receiver is close to the transmitter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants’ arguments have been carefully reviewed, and the Office acknowledges the effort made to distinguish the teachings of Okamoto from the limitations of amended claim 10. After reconsideration of the cited portions of Okamoto, including FIG. 3A, FIG. 13A, and the associated descriptions of transmitter coil CLCA3, relay coils CLCA3‑1 and CLCA3‑2, and spiral‑wound coils CL43‑1 and CL43‑2, the Office respectfully maintains the rejection for the reasons explained below.
The Applicants assert that Okamoto fails to disclose a coil that “radially surrounds” the AUV 800, emphasizing that FIG. 3A depicts a transmitter coil positioned on a horizontal upper surface of a disc‑like platform rather than a coil physically encircling the AUV. The Office agrees that FIG. 3A does not show a literal cylindrical or ring‑shaped coil wrapped around the AUV. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “radially surrounding,” the analysis cannot be limited solely to the physical geometry of the coil. A spiral transmitter coil, such as CLCA3 in FIG. 3A, generates a magnetic field that extends radially outward from its center. When the AUV 800 is positioned above this coil, the field extends around the lower portion of the AUV in a radial manner. Under BRI, this constitutes a radially surrounding field configuration, even if the coil itself is planar. The Applicants’ argument relies on a narrow interpretation that is not consistent with the standard applied during examination.
The Applicants also rely on FIG. 13A to argue that Okamoto’s power supply stand 1000B, with sides En1, En2, and En3 and connection members M21–M23, does not disclose the claimed structure. The Office acknowledges that FIG. 13A depicts a multi‑sided stand rather than a continuous cylindrical housing. However, the stand in FIG. 13A includes vertically aligned sides that partially surround a central region. The spiral‑wound coils CL43‑1 and CL43‑2 are linked through the open sides between En1, En2, and En3, forming a three‑dimensional coil arrangement around the central region where the AUV 800 is intended to be positioned. Although the sides do not form a complete enclosure, they do form a surrounding structure with open regions that allow magnetic coupling. The Applicants’ argument focuses on the exact geometry of the stand, but the law does not require identity of form; it requires identity or obviousness of function and arrangement.
Furthermore, Okamoto explicitly teaches concern with coil placement, field uniformity, and efficient power transfer. A person of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by these teachings, would readily understand that modifying the multi‑sided stand of FIG. 13A into a more continuous or more explicitly surrounding structure is a predictable design choice. The Applicants’ amendments to claim 10 introduce structural refinements such as the particular arrangement of surrounding coil segments and open sides that represent routine optimization rather than a departure from the teachings of Okamoto. The Applicants have not identified any unexpected result or technical advantage that would render these modifications non‑obvious.
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/
07/27/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights