DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 19/080,920 originally filed 03/16/2025. The amendment presented on 01/20/2026 which provides no amendments to claims 1-9 is hereby acknowledged. Currently Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claimed receiver, Applicant asserts that “receiver of Marshall should be "receiving element 612", instead of the structural "support frame 704””. Marshall teaches “Support frame 704 can be any suitable structure capable of providing structural support for housing 602 and protection for the internal components of accessory device 600 from mechanical stress.” The Office agrees that the support frame is not provided in Marshall for receiving a signal however the support frame merely provides support for the elements, as a whole, that are used to receive radio frequency signal. These elements work in conjunction and function as the receiver. As taught in Marshall, electrical component(s) 715 can be any suitable electronic device for operating accessory device 600 and/or receiver coil 618. Electrical component(s) 715 can be electrically coupled to receiver coil 618 of receiving element 612 to receive wireless power, such as by receiving current from receiver coil 618 induced by a magnetic flux generated by a transmitter element. As can be readily seen in Figure 7A-B, the components take on an “annular shape” and each side having “a radius of curvature” and further details provided in Figure 10.
[AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
413
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image2.png
424
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
429
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claimed “insulator”, Applicants specification teaches insulator 130 is used to reflect magnetic induction energy. Marshalls’ “copper shield” does in fact provide this function as shield 702 is constructed and positioned in a way that enhances the blockage of magnetic flux. (Marshall [0075]) Thus, this reads on the claim. Assuming that Applicants arguments intend to suggest that the insulator is specific type of material, it is noted that these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants’ claims are still broad enough to read on the prior art of record and will be currently maintained.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a first office action in response to application 19/080,920 filed 03/16/2025, in which claims 1-9 are presented for examination. Currently claims 1-9 are pending.
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
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 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0103764 A1 hereinafter Marshall.
Consider Claim 1:
Marshall discloses an active capacitive stylus, comprising: (Marshall, See Abstract.)
a pen body, having an axial direction; (Marshall, [0072], “In some embodiments, housing 602 of accessory device 600 can include a curved surface portion 608 and a flat portion 610 that both extend between at least a portion of interfacing end 604 and back end 606 of housing 602. Flat portion 610 can include a receiving surface 611, against which a housing for a host device can be positioned to effectuate wireless power transfer, as will be discussed herein with respect to FIGS. 7A-7B and 8A.”)
a receiver, surrounding the pen body and used to receive a radio frequency signal, the receiver comprising an annular body, wherein the annular body has two opposite first sides and two opposite second sides, a length of each first side is greater than that of each second side, the two first sides are parallel to the axial direction, and each second side has a first radius of curvature and a second radius of curvature, the first radius of curvature being different from the second radius of curvature; (Marshall, [0074], [0076], “Support frame 704 can be any suitable structure capable of providing structural support for housing 602 and protection for the internal components of accessory device 600 from mechanical stress. In certain embodiments, support frame 704 is positioned against an inner surface of housing 602 and extends along an area of the inner surface except for regions between receiving element 612 and flat portion 610 of housing 602, as shown in FIG. 7A. Support frame 704 can be formed of any suitable stiff material, such as aluminum, steel, and the like.”)
an insulator, located between the receiver and the pen body; and (Marshall, [0075], “In some embodiments, shield 702 is constructed and positioned in a way that enhances the blockage of magnetic flux.” See Figs. 6-7. )
a shell, sleeved on the pen body and wrapping around the receiver. (Marshall, [0072], “In some embodiments, housing 602 of accessory device 600 can include a curved surface portion 608 and a flat portion 610 that both extend between at least a portion of interfacing end 604 and back end 606 of housing 602. Flat portion 610 can include a receiving surface 611, against which a housing for a host device can be positioned to effectuate wireless power transfer, as will be discussed herein with respect to FIGS. 7A-7B and 8A.”)
Consider Claim 2:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, wherein the pen body comprises a pen tip, an end portion, and a holding portion located between the pen tip and the end portion, the receiver being disposed at the holding portion. (Marshall, [0072], “In some embodiments, housing 602 of accessory device 600 can include a curved surface portion 608 and a flat portion 610 that both extend between at least a portion of interfacing end 604 and back end 606 of housing 602. Flat portion 610 can include a receiving surface 611, against which a housing for a host device can be positioned to effectuate wireless power transfer, as will be discussed herein with respect to FIGS. 7A-7B and 8A.”)
Consider Claim 3:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, wherein the annular body has two first end portions respectively corresponding to the two first sides, and the two first end portions are bent toward each other. (Marshall, [0072], “In some embodiments, housing 602 of accessory device 600 can include a curved surface portion 608 and a flat portion 610 that both extend between at least a portion of interfacing end 604 and back end 606 of housing 602. Flat portion 610 can include a receiving surface 611, against which a housing for a host device can be positioned to effectuate wireless power transfer, as will be discussed herein with respect to FIGS. 7A-7B and 8A.”)
Consider Claim 4:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, wherein the insulator entirely surrounds the pen body. (Marshall, [0075], “In some embodiments, shield 702 is constructed and positioned in a way that enhances the blockage of magnetic flux. For instance, shield 702 can include an inner bottom surface 714 and inner side surfaces 716 and 718 that form a cavity within which receiving element 612 is disposed so that shield 702 is positioned around five sides of receiving element 612. A perspective view of shield 702 is shown in FIG. 9, which will be discussed further herein. By being positioned around five sides of receiving element 612, shield 702 can enhance its ability to block magnetic flux from propagating into opening 710 and/or outside of accessory device 600. In some embodiments, shield 702 can include outer side surfaces 720 and 722 and outer back surface 724. Outer sides surfaces 720 and 722 can conform to the profile of support frame 704 and thus have a curved profile, while outer back surface 724 can be substantially flat to provide space, e.g., housing opening 710, within which components, e.g., electrical component(s) 715, of accessory device 600 can be positioned. In some embodiments, the thickness of shield 702 is greater for regions between inner side surfaces 716 and 718 and respective outer side surfaces 720 and 722, as shown in FIG. 7A. The thicker parts of shield 702 can provide a more structurally robust shielding component, as well as provide additional structural protection for receiving element 612. In particular embodiments, outer back surface 724 is positioned along a center vertical line 712 that divides the accessory device into two halves. In such embodiments, shield 702 is positioned within regions of one half of the accessory device.”)
Consider Claim 5:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, wherein a length of the insulator in the axial direction is greater than or equal to that of each first side in the axial direction, and the two first sides are attached to the insulator and spaced apart to partially expose the insulator. (Marshall, [0075], “In some embodiments, shield 702 is constructed and positioned in a way that enhances the blockage of magnetic flux. For instance, shield 702 can include an inner bottom surface 714 and inner side surfaces 716 and 718 that form a cavity within which receiving element 612 is disposed so that shield 702 is positioned around five sides of receiving element 612. A perspective view of shield 702 is shown in FIG. 9, which will be discussed further herein. By being positioned around five sides of receiving element 612, shield 702 can enhance its ability to block magnetic flux from propagating into opening 710 and/or outside of accessory device 600. In some embodiments, shield 702 can include outer side surfaces 720 and 722 and outer back surface 724. Outer sides surfaces 720 and 722 can conform to the profile of support frame 704 and thus have a curved profile, while outer back surface 724 can be substantially flat to provide space, e.g., housing opening 710, within which components, e.g., electrical component(s) 715, of accessory device 600 can be positioned. In some embodiments, the thickness of shield 702 is greater for regions between inner side surfaces 716 and 718 and respective outer side surfaces 720 and 722, as shown in FIG. 7A. The thicker parts of shield 702 can provide a more structurally robust shielding component, as well as provide additional structural protection for receiving element 612. In particular embodiments, outer back surface 724 is positioned along a center vertical line 712 that divides the accessory device into two halves. In such embodiments, shield 702 is positioned within regions of one half of the accessory device.”)
Consider Claim 6:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, wherein the receiver has a hollow portion penetrating the annular body, and in a cross-sectional view along a direction perpendicular to the axial direction, the annular body has a first maximum width, the hollow portion has a second maximum width, and the first maximum width is greater than the second maximum width. (Marshall, [0074], [0076], “Support frame 704 can be any suitable structure capable of providing structural support for housing 602 and protection for the internal components of accessory device 600 from mechanical stress. In certain embodiments, support frame 704 is positioned against an inner surface of housing 602 and extends along an area of the inner surface except for regions between receiving element 612 and flat portion 610 of housing 602, as shown in FIG. 7A. Support frame 704 can be formed of any suitable stiff material, such as aluminum, steel, and the like.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0103764 A1.
Consider Claim 7:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, and while teaching the first radius of curvature however does not specify is greater than or equal to 4.5 millimeters. (Marshall, [0074], [0076], “Support frame 704 can be any suitable structure capable of providing structural support for housing 602 and protection for the internal components of accessory device 600 from mechanical stress. In certain embodiments, support frame 704 is positioned against an inner surface of housing 602 and extends along an area of the inner surface except for regions between receiving element 612 and flat portion 610 of housing 602, as shown in FIG. 7A. Support frame 704 can be formed of any suitable stiff material, such as aluminum, steel, and the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a radius of curvature greater than or equal to 4.5 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 8:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, and while teaching wherein the second radius of curvature however does not specify is greater than 3 millimeters. (Marshall, [0074], [0076], “Support frame 704 can be any suitable structure capable of providing structural support for housing 602 and protection for the internal components of accessory device 600 from mechanical stress. In certain embodiments, support frame 704 is positioned against an inner surface of housing 602 and extends along an area of the inner surface except for regions between receiving element 612 and flat portion 610 of housing 602, as shown in FIG. 7A. Support frame 704 can be formed of any suitable stiff material, such as aluminum, steel, and the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a radius of curvature greater than 3 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Consider Claim 9:
Marshall discloses the active capacitive stylus according to claim 1, wherein the receiver is a coil wound into a thin sheet, and a thickness of the thin sheet is less than 0.15 millimeters. (Marshall, [0074], [0076], “Support frame 704 can be any suitable structure capable of providing structural support for housing 602 and protection for the internal components of accessory device 600 from mechanical stress. In certain embodiments, support frame 704 is positioned against an inner surface of housing 602 and extends along an area of the inner surface except for regions between receiving element 612 and flat portion 610 of housing 602, as shown in FIG. 7A. Support frame 704 can be formed of any suitable stiff material, such as aluminum, steel, and the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a thickness less than 0.15 millimeters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
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.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in a current or previous PTO-892. The prior art cited in a current or previous PTO-892 reads upon the applicants claims in part, in whole and/or gives a general reference to the knowledge and skill of persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant, when responding to this Office action, should consider not only the cited references applied in the rejection but also any additional references made of record.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests support be shown for any new or amended claims. More precisely, indicate support for any newly added language or amendments by specifying page, line numbers, and/or figure(s). This will assist The Office in compact prosecution of this application. The Office has cited particular columns, paragraphs, and/or line numbers in the applied rejection of the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within each claim, however other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider the cited reference(s) in its entirety and not only the cited portions as other sections of the reference may expand on the teachings of the cited portion(s).
Applicant Representatives are reminded of CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) which states “A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.” When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a two month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c) ).
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. Granting of After Final Interviews: “Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied.” See MPEP § 713.09.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J JANSEN II whose telephone number is (571)272-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Normally Available Monday-Friday 9am-4pm EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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.
/Michael J Jansen II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626