DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This office action is a non-final rejection in response to the filing of the application on 05/12/2025. 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
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusunoki et al, US PG-Publication (US 2015/0333539 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kusunoki et al discloses an electric field resonance antenna (Fig 9, 310) comprising:
a resonator (310) that includes a first spherical electrode (311), a second spherical electrode (312), and a resonance coil (313) connecting the first spherical electrode (311) and the second spherical (312) electrode (see Fig 9 and par. [0063], cables 315 and 316 are connected to each other, these are connected respectively to output terminals of a not-illustrated alternating-current power generating unit. By connecting the alternating-current power generating unit to the power transmission coupler 310 by the connection lines 315, 316, a power transmission device is constituted), and resonates at an output frequency of a power transmission-reception circuit for power transmission (see Fig 9 and par. [0062]-[0067]); and
a power supply (alternating-current power generating unit, not shown, par. [0063],[0067]) that includes a power supply coil (314) magnetically coupled to the resonance coil (313) and electrically connected with the power transmission-reception circuit (see Fig 9, also reproduced below, and par. [0062]-[0067],
PNG
media_image1.png
801
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
Regarding claim 2, Kusunoki et al discloses the power transmission apparatus comprising:
a pair of electric field resonance antennas (see Fig 9 and par. [0062]-[0067] disclosing power transmission coupler 310 and power reception coupler 320) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 3-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusunoki et al, US PG-Publication (US 2015/0333539 A1) in view of Moyer et al US PG-Publication (2015/0349539 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kusunoki et al discloses an electric field resonance antenna (Fig 9, 310) comprising:
a resonator (310) that includes a spherical electrode (311), a ground, and a resonance coil (313) connecting the spherical electrode (311) and the ground, and resonates at an output frequency of a power transmission-reception circuit for power transmission (see Fig 9 and par. [0062]-[0067]); and
a power supply (alternating-current power generating unit, not shown, par. [0063],[0067]) that includes a power supply coil (314) magnetically coupled to the resonance coil (313) and electrically connected with the power transmission-reception circuit, wherein the resonance coil (313) and the power supply coil (314) are connected with the ground (see Fig 9, also reproduced below, and par. [0062]-[0067],
par. [0063], cables 315 and 316 are connected to each other, these are connected respectively to output terminals of a not-illustrated alternating-current power generating unit. By connecting the alternating-current power generating unit to the power transmission coupler 310 by the connection lines 315, 316, a power transmission device is constituted).
PNG
media_image2.png
1026
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in addition, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). (see MPEP 2114).
Furthermore, it has been held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (See MPEP 2114)).
Kusunoki et al does not clearly discloses a ground;
However, Moyer et al is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application in which discloses a wireless power transmission system (200) and further discloses the well-known use of a ground (see Fig 5 and par. [0051],[0054],[0056] disclosing ground terminal connected to 500 and ground terminal 514 in receiver 204);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless power transmission system in Kusunoki et al with the teaching of Moyer et al by including a ground in order to provide a stable voltage reference, this improves measurement accuracy and control stability and also reduce common mode noise.
Regarding claim 4, Kusunoki et al discloses a power transmission apparatus comprising: a pair of electric field resonance antennas (see Fig 9 and par. [0062]-[0067] disclosing power transmission coupler 310 and power reception coupler 320) of claim 3.
Examiner Note
7. The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the cited prior art in the PTO-892 form attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on (571) 270-7166. 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. /ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights