DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This communication is an office action final rejection on the merits in response to the filing of the applicant’s amendments / remarks on 06/23/2026. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites:
“a magnetic anchor arrangement comprising a plurality of magnetic anchors arranged about a perimeter of the at least one secondary coil in an annular configuration; and …
wherein the at least one orientation magnetic anchor is configured, when coupled with the corresponding magnetic alignment array, to limit rotation of the pinless power coupling accessory about a central axis and provide a selected angular orientation relative to the pinless power jack”;
The terms “about a perimeter and about a central axis, ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about a perimeter and about a central axis are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
See dictionary: ABOUT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
about
adverb
1
a: reasonably close to
about a year ago
b: almost
about starved
just about finished
It is not defined in the claim, as currently recited, what consists of “about”, therefore renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear which are the metes and bounds of the claim in relation to the extent of area expected (particular measurements of the perimeter and central axis) in the structure of the magnetic alignment assembly.
Regarding claims 2-18, these claims are rejected under 112 (2nd) since carries the dependency on claim 1.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,881,717 since are similar.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a pinless power coupling in a similar manner without patentable distinguishable features.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US Patent 11,881,717 discloses a pinless power plug for receiving wireless power from a pinless power jack, the pinless power plug comprising: at least one secondary coil for inductively coupling with a primary coil; a first magnet, having an annular shape, arranged around a perimeter of the at least one secondary coil concentric and non-overlapping with the at least one secondary coil, wherein the first magnet is configured to magnetically couple with a second magnet in the pinless power jack; and a third magnet spaced away from and outside of the first magnet, wherein the third magnet is configured to magnetically couple with a fourth magnet in the pinless power jack at a particular orientation (see Claim 1).
5. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,611,240 since are similar.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a pinless power coupling in a similar manner without patentable distinguishable features.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US Patent 11,611,240 discloses a pinless power plug for receiving wireless power from a pinless power jack, the pinless power plug comprising: at least one secondary coil for inductively coupling with a primary coil; a first magnet, having an annular shape, arranged around a perimeter of the at least one secondary coil concentric and non-overlapping with the at least one secondary coil, wherein the first magnet is configured to magnetically couple with a second magnet in the pinless power jack; and a third magnet spaced away from and outside of the first magnet, wherein the third magnet is configured to magnetically couple with a fourth magnet in the pinless power jack at a particular orientation (see Claim 1).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,437,852 since are similar.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a pinless power coupling in a similar manner without patentable distinguishable features.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of US Patent 11,437,852 discloses a pinless power plug for receiving wireless power from a pinless power jack, the pinless power plug comprising: at least one secondary coil for inductively coupling with a primary coil; a first magnet, having an annular shape, arranged around a perimeter of the at least one secondary coil concentric and non-overlapping with the at least one secondary coil, wherein the first magnet is configured to magnetically couple with a second magnet in the pinless power jack; and a third magnet spaced away from and outside of the first magnet, wherein the third magnet is configured to magnetically couple with a fourth magnet in the pinless power jack at a particular orientation (see Claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 112 (2nd) rejection for claims 1-18 is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicants amendments.
In addition, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn after search and consideration.
Furthermore, the examiner recommends the applicant to consider filing a terminal disclaimer promptly in order to overcome the current double patenting rejection. Such a filing may expedite prosecution of this application by obviating the double patenting rejection.
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 of record in the 892-form attached.
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 ALFONSO PEREZ BORROTO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1714. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm.
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
