DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-3 and 7-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…when viewed in the power transmission direction;….with respect to the coil in a power transmission direction with a gap…” should be “…when viewed in a power transmission direction;….with respect to the coil in the power transmission direction with a gap…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Dependent claims 2, 3 and 7-14 are also objected to at least the same reason as objected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2, 3 and 7-14 are depending on the objected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “…receives the power in a wireless manner…” should be “…receives the power in the wireless manner…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 4-6, 15 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “A power transmission device used to transmit a power in a wireless manner with a power reception transmission device….the coil having an annular shape including an inner periphery when viewed in the power transmission direction;….the power reception device with respect to the coil in a power transmission direction,…..innermost of the coil and the magnetic member….four time a length of the gap between the coil and the shield member.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “a power reception transmission device” is not in accordance with the Application’s specification, as best understood the claim limitation is supposed to be “a power reception device”;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the power transmission direction” should be “a power transmission direction” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “a power transmission direction” should be “the power transmission direction” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(iv). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member”; if “the magnetic member” is referring back to previously defined “an annular magnetic member”, then the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member” should be “the annular magnetic member, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences; and
(v). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the gap”.
Dependent claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 4 as stated above because the dependent claims 5, 6, 15 and 16 are depending on the rejected independent claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “…the magnet member……the outermost of the coil and the magnetic member…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnet member”; if “the magnet member” is referring back to previously defined “an annular magnetic member”, then the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnet member” should be “the annular magnetic member, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(ii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the outermost”, which should be “…outermost…” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(iii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member”; if “the magnetic member” is referring back to previously defined “an annular magnetic member”, then the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member” should be “the annular magnetic member, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation “…the outermost of the coil and the magnetic member…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the outermost”, which should be “…outermost…” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(ii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member”; if “the magnetic member” is referring back to previously defined “an annular magnetic member”, then the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member” should be “the annular magnetic member, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “…the magnetic member…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member”; if “the magnetic member” is referring back to previously defined “an annular magnetic member”, then the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member” should be “the annular magnetic member, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “…the magnetic member…” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member”; if “the magnetic member” is referring back to previously defined “an annular magnetic member”, then the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the magnetic member” should be “the annular magnetic member, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (as best understood) as being anticipated by Yuki et al. (WO2015019478) (hereinafter “Yuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuki discloses a power transmission device (4 in Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) used to transmit a power in a wireless manner with a power reception device (5 in Fig.1), the power transmission device (4) comprising: a coil (N1 in Figs.2, 3 and 6-8) that transmits the power in the wireless manner, the coil having an annular shape (N1 having an annular shape is shown in Figs.2 and 6-8) including an inner periphery (inner periphery of N1) when viewed in the power transmission direction (upward direction of T1 in Figs. 2, 3, 6 and 7); and a shield member (16 in Figs.2 and 3; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7; please consider all conditions) disposed on a side opposite to a side of the power reception device (T2 in Figs. 2, 6 and 7 is a part of the power reception device) with respect to the coil in a power transmission direction with a gap (a gap between N1 and 16 in Fig.2; N1 and 316 in Fig.6; or N1 and 416 in Fig.7) formed between the coil (N1) and the shield member (16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) in the power transmission direction (upward direction), the shield member (16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) having an annular shape including an inner periphery (inner periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) when viewed in the power transmission direction, wherein the shield member (16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) at least partially overlaps the coil (N1) when viewed in the power transmission direction, and a distance between the inner periphery of the shield member (inner periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) and the inner periphery of the coil (inner periphery of N1) when viewed in the power transmission direction is less than or equal to four times a length of the gap (a gap between N1 and 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) between the coil and the shield member (according to Figs.2, 3 and 6-8, the distance between the inner periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7 and the inner periphery of N1 when viewed in the power transmission direction is less than or equal to four times a length of the gap between N1 and 16 in Fig.2; N1 and 316 in Fig.6; or N1 and 416 in Fig.7; Note: Figs.2, 6 and 7 shows exploded view of the power supply transformer Tr in Fig.1, according to ¶ 17, 31 and 34, thus the sizes and positions relationship of each components in Figs.2, 6 and 7 are scaled and related to each other).
Regarding claim 2, Yuki discloses the shield member (16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) includes an outer periphery (outer periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) when viewed in the power transmission direction, the coil (N1) includes an outer periphery (outer periphery of N1) when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member is configured in such a way that a distance between the outer periphery of the shield member (outer periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) and the outer periphery of the coil (outer periphery of N1) is less than or equal to four times the length of the gap (a gap between N1 and 16 in Figs.2 and 3; N1 and 316 in Fig.6; or N1 and 416 in Fig.7 in upward direction; according to Figs.2, 3, 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 3, Yuki discloses when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member (16; 316; or 416) is configured in such a way that the distance between the inner periphery of the shield member (16; 316; or 416) and the inner periphery of the coil (N1) is more than or equal to twice the length of the gap (due to the combination of a spacing between 13 and N1, thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413, respectively; please refer to Fig.3 for the spacing between 14 and N1 and the thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 14; 314; or 414).
Regarding claim 4, Yuki discloses a power transmission device (4 in Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) used to transmit a power in a wireless manner with a power reception device (5 in Fig.1), the power transmission device comprising: a coil (N1 in Figs.2, 3 and 6-8) that transmits the power in the wireless manner, the coil having an annular shape (N1 having an annular shape is shown in Figs.2 and 6-8) including an inner periphery (inner periphery of N1) when viewed in the power transmission direction (upward direction of T1 in Figs. 2, 3, 6 and 7); a shield member (16 in Figs.2 and 3; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7; please consider all conditions) disposed on a side opposite to a side of the power reception device (T2 in Figs. 2, 6 and 7 is a part of the power reception device) with respect to the coil (N1) in a power transmission direction (upward direction of T1 in Figs. 2, 3, 6 and 7), the shield member including an inner periphery (inner periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) when viewed in the power transmission direction; and an annular magnetic member (15 in Figs.2 and 3; 315 in Fig.6; or 415 in Fig.7; please consider all conditions) provided between the coil (N1) and the shield member (16 in Figs.2 and 3; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7), the annular magnetic member including an inner periphery (inner periphery of 15; 315; or 415), wherein the shield member (16 in Figs.2 and 3; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) at least partially overlaps the coil (N1) when viewed in the power transmission direction, and a distance between the inner periphery of the shield member (inner periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) and the inner periphery of innermost of the coil (N1) and the magnetic member (15; 315; or 415) when viewed in the power transmission direction is less than or equal to four times a length of the gap between the coil (N1) and the shield member (16; 316; or 416, please refer to Figs.2, 3, 6 and 7; Note: Figs.2, 6 and 7 shows exploded view of the power supply transformer Tr in Fig.1, according to ¶ 17, 31 and 34, thus the sizes and positions relationship of each components in Figs.2, 6 and 7 are scaled and related to each other).
Regarding claim 5, Yuki discloses the shield member (16; 316; or 416) includes an outer periphery (outer periphery of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) when viewed in the power transmission direction, the coil (N1) includes an outer periphery when viewed in the power transmission direction, the magnet member (15; 315; or 415) includes an outer periphery, and the shield member is configured in such a way that a distance between the outer periphery of the shield member and the outer periphery of the outermost of the coil and the magnetic member is less than or equal to four times the length of the gap (please refer to Figs.2, 3, 6 and 7; Note: Figs.2, 6 and 7 shows exploded view of the power supply transformer Tr in Fig.1, according to ¶ 17, 31 and 34, thus the sizes and positions relationship of each components in Figs.2, 6 and 7 are scaled and related to each other).
Regarding claim 6, Yuki discloses when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member (16; 316; or 416) is configured in such a way that a distance between the inner periphery of the shield member (16; 316; or 416) and the inner periphery of the outermost of the coil (N1) and the magnetic member (15; 315; or 415) is more than or equal to twice the length of the gap (due to the combination of a spacing between 13 and N1, thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413, respectively; please refer to Fig.3 for the spacing between 14 and N1 and the thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 14; 314; or 414).
Regarding claim 8, Yuki discloses wherein the shield member (16; 316; or 416) extends in such a direction that at least a part of the shield member includes a component (component of 16 in Fig.2; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7 (or) 13, 14, and/or 15 in Fig.3; 313, 314 and/or 315 in Fig.6; or 413, 415 and/or 415 in Fig.7; please consider all conditions) in the power transmission direction (upward direction).
Regarding claim 9, Yuki discloses the outer periphery of the shield member (outer periphery of 16 in Figs.2 and 3; 316 in Fig.6; or 416 in Fig.7) extends in the power transmission direction.
Regarding claim 12, Yuki discloses an inverter circuit (7 in Fig.1; ¶ 14) that supplies the power to the coil (N1).
Regarding claim 13, Yuki discloses when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member (16; 316; or 416) is configured in such a way that the distance between the outer periphery of the shield member (16; 316; or 416) and the outer periphery of the coil (N1) is more than or equal to the length of the gap (due to the combination of a spacing between 14 and N1, thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 14; 314; or 414).
Regarding claim 14, Yuki discloses when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member (16; 316; or 416) is configured in such a way that the distance between the inner periphery of the shield member (16; 316; or 416) and the inner periphery of the coil (N1) is more than or equal to twice the length of the gap (due to the combination of a spacing between 13 and N1, thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413, respectively; please refer to Fig.3 for the spacing between 13 and N1 and the thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413).
Regarding claim 15, Yuki discloses when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member (16; 316; or 416) is configured in such a way that the distance between the outer periphery of the shield member (16; 316; or 416) and the outer periphery of the outermost of the coil (N1) and the magnetic member (15; 315; or 415) is more than or equal to the length of the gap (due to the combination of a spacing between 14 and N1, thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413, respectively; please refer to Fig.3 for the spacing between 14 and N1 and the thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 14; 314; or 414).
Regarding claim 16, Yuki discloses when viewed in the power transmission direction, the shield member (16; 316; or 416) is configured in such a way that the distance between the inner periphery of the shield member (16; 316; or 416) and the inner periphery of the innermost of the coil (N1) and the magnetic member (15; 315; or 415) is more than or equal to twice the length of the gap (due to the combination of a spacing between 13 and N1, thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413, respectively; please refer to Fig.3 for the spacing between 13 and N1 and the thickness of 16; 316; or 416 and thickness of 13; 313; or 413).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki et al. (WO2015019478) (hereinafter “Yuki”) in view of BRUSA ELEKTRONIK AG (EP 3041007) (hereinafter “Brusa”).
Regarding claim 7, Yuki is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yuki doesn’t disclose the coil is disposed so as to extend on a plane parallel to a road surface as a whole, and the shield member extends on the plane parallel to the road surface as a whole.
Brusa discloses the coil (10 in Fig.8) is disposed so as to extend on a plane parallel to a road surface (road surface shown in Fig.10) as a whole, and the shield member (1a or 1c) extends on the plane parallel to the road surface as a whole (please refer to Figs.1, 8 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuki with the teaching of Brusa to provide the coil is disposed so as to extend on a plane parallel to a road surface as a whole, and the shield member extends on the plane parallel to the road surface as a whole. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use the power transmission device to transfer power to the vehicle as supported by Brusa.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2836
