DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for 17/986,158, filed 11/14/2022, after the request for continued examination filed 2/4/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 19-23 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 2/4/2026, the prior at rejections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/2026 has been entered.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Lopez-Gasso, et al. Sensors, 2022, 22, 7908: This reference teaches a solar-powered RFID sensor with a power management unit.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 19 recites “means for initiating entry of the controller circuit into an active mode from an ultra-low power mode of operation using energy harvested from an electromagnetic signal passed by the enclosure.”
This “means” will be interpreted to a photovoltaic device/light emitting diode configured in a photovoltaic mode, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 19 recites “means for maintaining the controller circuit in the active mode … after the electromagnetic signal disappears.”
This “means” will be interpreted to a include a feedback circuit, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 20 recites “means for returning the controller circuit … after the electromagnetic signal disappears.”
This “means” will be interpreted to be process of the controller, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savarese, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313758 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Savarese teaches an integrated circuit product (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045]-[0052]).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises an energy harvesting circuit configured to provide an activation signal in response to receiving an electromagnetic signal, corresponding to the solar cell 540 (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises a controller (i.e. microprocessor 541, Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0050]) comprising a power input terminal (i.e. the input terminal from solar cell 540, Fig. 5) and an output terminal (i.e. the output terminal to item 544, Fig. 5).
Savarese teaches that, when the solar cell is illuminated, it turns the microprocessor/controller from an off mode into a low power mode (paragraph [0048]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the controller/microprocessor is configured to transition from an ultra-low power mode of operation (i.e. an off mode) to an active mode of operation (i.e. a low-power mode) in response to the activation signal transitioning to an active level from an inactive level.
Savarese teaches that, once the integrated circuit product is activated, the RFID circuitry 560 and antenna 580 receives and transmits RF signals, and that this circuitry is powered by the power regulating circuitry, which is controlled by the controller/microprocessor (paragraph [0048]-[0051], Fig. 6).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit product comprises a feedback circuit configured to maintain the activation signal at the active level after the electromagnetic signal disappears (i.e. the RFID and power regulating circuitry).
Savarese teaches that, if the identity of the integrated circuit product does not match with the information received from another device, the controller causes the integrated circuit product to transition into an off mode (paragraph [0050]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit product comprises a feedback circuit configured to maintain the activation signal at the active level after the electromagnetic signal disappears (i.e. the RFID and power regulating circuitry), until the controller causes the activation signal to transition from the active level to the inactive level in response to an absence of detected activity for a predetermined time after the electromagnetic signal disappears (i.e. if there is no match between the communicated circuit ID and the RFID reader device).
It is noted that “configured to transition … from an inactive level” and “configured to maintain … electromagnetic signal disappears” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In reference to Claim 10, Savarese teaches that the controller stores identification in a memory, and, if the identification information stored in the memory matches with the received identification information, the integrated circuit product switches to a full power mode (paragraph [0049]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to execute instructions stored in a memory, the instructions being executable by the controller to cause the controller to generate a signal that maintains the active level of the activation signal after the electromagnetic signal disappears.
Savarese teaches that, if the identity of the integrated circuit product does not match with the information received from another device, the controller causes the integrated circuit product to transition into an off mode (paragraph [0050]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the controller transitions the activation signal to the inactive level to return the controller to the ultra-low power mode of operation in response to the absence of detected activity for the predetermined time after the electromagnetic signal disappears.
It is noted that the limitations directed toward the executable instructions in Claim 10 are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 22, Savarese teaches that the absence of detected activity includes an absence of pairing the integrated circuit product to another device (i.e. a pairing of the “desired” RFID tag with the RFID reader, paragraph [0050]).
In reference to Claim 5, Savarese teaches an integrated circuit product (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045]-[0052]).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises an energy harvesting circuit configured to provide an activation signal in response to receiving an electromagnetic signal, corresponding to the solar cell 540 (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises a controller (i.e. microprocessor 541, Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0050]) comprising a power input terminal (i.e. the input terminal from solar cell 540, Fig. 5) and an output terminal (i.e. the output terminal to item 544, Fig. 5).
Savarese teaches that, when the solar cell is illuminated, it turns the microprocessor/controller from an off mode into a low power mode (paragraph [0048]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the controller/microprocessor is configured to transition from an ultra-low power mode of operation (i.e. an off mode) to an active mode of operation (i.e. a low-power mode) in response to the activation signal transitioning to an active level from an inactive level.
Savarese teaches that, once the integrated circuit product is activated, the RFID circuitry 560 and antenna 580 receives and transmits RF signals, and that this circuitry is powered by the power regulating circuitry, which is controlled by the controller/microprocessor (paragraph [0048]-[0051], Fig. 6).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the integrated circuit product comprises a feedback circuit configured to maintain the activation signal at the active level after the electromagnetic signal disappears (i.e. the RFID and power regulating circuitry).
Solar cells produce DC voltage. Therefore, the solar cell/energy harvesting circuit provides a DC signal as the activation signal to a first node coupled to the output terminal when the controller is configured in the ultra-low power mode of operation (i.e. is structurally capable of doing so).
Solar cells are also diode structures with a fixed polarity. Therefore, the solar cell of Savarese is structurally capable of preventing current from flowing into the energy harvesting circuit from the output terminal when the controller is configured in the active mode of operation.
It is noted that “configured to transition … from an inactive level” and “configured to maintain … electromagnetic signal disappears,” “provides a DC signal…configured in the active mode of operation” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savarese, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313758 A1), in view of Lee, et al. (IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, No. 3, March 2022).
In reference to Claim 2, Savarese teaches that the electromagnetic signal is visible light and the energy harvesting circuit includes a photovoltaic device (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Savarese does not teach that the product further comprises a light source configured to generate the electromagnetic signal in response to an action by a user.
To solve the same problem of providing an RFID tag readable by a reader, Lee teaches a mechanism by which an RFID tag with an integrated solar cell is “turned on” by a flashlight wielded by a user (paragraph 1, column 1, page 3125).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Savarese to include a flashlight to activate the RFID tag, because Lee teaches that this is a suitable and conventional method to apply sufficient light to a solar-powered RFID tag to cause it to activate.
Modifying the device of Savarese to include a flashlight to activate the RFID tag teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the product further comprises a light source configured to generate the electromagnetic signal in response to an action by a user.
It is noted that “configured to generate the electromagnetic signal in response to action by a user” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savarese, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313758 A1), in view of Haensgen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0079257 A1).
In reference to Claim 3, Savarese does not teach that the integrated circuit comprises the enclosure recited in Claim 3.
To solve the same problem of providing an integrated circuit device, Haensgen teaches an integrated circuit device (Figs. 12-14, paragraphs [0198]-[0211]), in which the integrated circuit device is encapsulated within a housing with a transparent cover and an opaque base (paragraph [0210]).
Haensgen further teaches that the transparent cover provides the benefit of transmitting light, while the base is preferably opaque and light-blocking (paragraph [0210]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Savarese to encapsulate the integrated circuit of Savarese within a housing comprising a transparent cover and an opaque base, like that taught by Haensgen, because Haensgen teaches that the transparent cover provides the benefit of transmitting light, while the base is preferably opaque and light-blocking (paragraph [0210]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the product further comprises an enclosure having a transparent portion (corresponding to the transparent cover in the modified device) and an opaque portion (corresponding to the opaque, light-blocking base of the modified device).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the energy harvesting circuit, the controller and the feedback circuit are sealed in the enclosure.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the transparent portion is configured to pass the electronic signal from outside the enclosure to the energy harvesting circuit and the opaque portion is configured to absorb (i.e. block) the electromagnetic signal.
It is noted that “configured to pass the electronic signal from outside the enclosure to the energy harvesting circuit and the opaque portion is configured to absorb, scatter, or reflect the electromagnetic signal” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 6, Savarese teaches that the integrated circuit product of his invention further comprises a battery 510 (Fig. 5).
Savarese further teaches that the battery 510 is selectively coupled to the power input terminal (paragraphs [0037] and [0047]-[0048]).
Further, modified Savarese as applied to Claim 3 (in which the entire integrated circuit product is enclosed in an enclosure) teaches that the battery is sealed in the enclosure.
In reference to Claim 7, Savarese teaches that the output terminal (i.e. the output terminal of the controller) provides a control signal from the controller, wherein the control signal is configured to maintain the active level of the activation signal after the electromagnetic signal disappears (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0048]-[0051]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savarese, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313758 A1), in view of Haensgen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0079257 A1), and further in view of Janko, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0277992 A1).
In reference to Claim 4, modified Savarese does not teach that the product of his invention comprises a removable barrier configured to cover the transparent portion while the integrated circuit product is unused.
However, Savarese teaches that the RFID tag of his invention is adhered to items while in use (Savarese, Claim 38).
To solve the same problem of providing adhesive RFID tags, Janko teaches an RFID tag with an adhesive layer that is covered by a removable liner layer, prior to its application (paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included a removable release liner over the adhesive portion of the RFID tag of modified Savarese, so that it can be prevented from adhering in unwanted places, prior to its intentional application, based on the disclosure of Janko.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the product comprises a removable barrier configured to cover the transparent portion while the integrated circuit product is unused.
It is noted that “configured to cover the transparent portion while the integrated circuit product is unused” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savarese, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313758 A1), in view of Ma, et al. (The FindIT Flashlight, pages 160-167).
In reference to Claim 8, Savarese does not teach that the device of his invention comprises the filter circuit of Claim 8.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic-powered tag readable by a reader, Ma teaches a readable tag comprising a filter circuit coupled to the energy harvesting circuit/photovoltaic device, corresponding to the HPF (Figs. 2-3, pages 162-163).
Ma further teaches that the controller of his invention further comprises an additional input terminal coupled to the filter circuit and configured to receive low frequency data communicated by the electromagnetic signal (Figs. 2-3, pages 162-163).
Ma additionally teaches that the filter circuit of his invention filters out ambient light signals (final paragraph, page 162).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the product of Savarese to comprise the filter circuit of Ma and the additional controller circuit input terminal of Ma, in order to achieve the taught benefit of filtering out ambient light signals.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the product comprises a filter circuit coupled to the energy harvesting circuit, wherein the controller further comprises an additional input terminal, the additional input terminal being coupled to the filter circuit and configured to receive low frequency data communicated by the electromagnetic signal.
It is noted that “configured to receive low frequency data communicated by the electromagnetic signal” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 23, Savarese teaches that the integrated circuit product further comprises a battery 510 (Fig. 5).
Savarese teaches that the activation signal (i.e. solar cell signal) is provided to the controller, thus turning the on the microprocessor/controller (paragraph [0048]).
This disclosure teaches that the product of modified Savarese comprises an enable terminal configured to provide activation signal to the controller.
This disclosure further teaches that the enable terminal is coupled to the output terminal (i.e. electrically connected within the entire system).
Fig. 5 teaches that the battery is coup0led to the power input terminal (i.e. electrically connected with the entire system).
Claims 9 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savarese, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0313758 A1), in view of Riesebosch (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0319586 A1).
In reference to Claim 9, Savarese does not teach that the energy harvesting circuit comprises a light-emitting diode configured in photovoltaic mode.
Instead, he teaches that it comprises a solar cell (Fig. 5).
To solve the same problem of providing an integrated circuit device comprising a light sensor, Riesebosch teaches that LEDs operated in a photovoltaic mode are suitable types of light sensors suitable for use as a wake-up circuit in an integrated circuit device comprising a light sensor.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used an LED operating in photovoltaic mode as the light sensor/solar cell of the device of Savarese, based on the teachings of Riesebosch.
In reference to Claim 19, Savarese teaches an integrated circuit product (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045]-[0052]).
Savarese teaches that the integrated circuit product of his invention further comprises a battery 510 (Fig. 5).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises a controller circuit coupled to the battery (i.e. microprocessor 541, Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0050]).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises means for initiating entry of the controller circuit into an active mode from an ultra-low power mode of operation using energy harvested from an electromagnetic signal.
This means corresponds to the solar cell 540 (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]), which Savarese teaches that, when the solar cell is illuminated, it turns the microprocessor/controller from an off mode into a low power mode (paragraph [0048]).
The integrated circuit product of Savarese comprises means for maintaining the controller circuit in the active mode after the electromagnetic signal disappears and until the controller circuit causes the activation signal to transition from the active level to the inactive level in response to an absence of detected activity for a predetermined time after the electromagnetic signal disappears.
This means corresponds to the controller and RFID circuitry, which is powered by the power regulating circuitry, which is controlled by the controller/microprocessor (paragraph [0048]-[0051], Fig. 6), and which transitions into an off mode if the identity of the integrated circuit product does not match with the information received from another device, the controller causes the integrated circuit product to transition into an off mode (paragraph [0050]).
It is noted that the functions of the controller are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Savarese does not teach that the integrated circuit of his invention comprises the enclosure required by Claim 19.
To solve the same problem of providing an integrated circuit device comprising a light sensor, Riesebosch teaches an integrated circuit device comprising a light sensor, in which the integrated circuit device is encapsulated within a transparent lens (Fig. 1C, paragraph [0034]).
Riesebosch further teaches that this encapsulating lens provides the benefit of protecting the components from the outside environment (paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Savarese to encapsulate the integrated circuit of Lee with the transparent encapsulating lens of Riesebosch, because Riesebosch teaches that such a lens provides the benefit of protecting the components of an integrated circuit device from the outside environment (paragraph [0034]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the product further comprises an enclosure surrounding the battery and the controller circuit; and wherein the means for initiating entry of the controller circuit into an active mode from an ultra-low-power mode of operation uses energy harvested from an electromagnetic signal passed by the enclosure.
In reference to Claim 20, the integrated circuit of Savarese comprises means for returning the controller circuit to the ultra-low power mode from the active mode at a predetermined time after the electromagnetic signal disappears (paragraph [0048]-[0051], Fig. 6).
In reference to Claim 21, Savarese teaches that the absence of detected activity includes an absence of pairing the integrated circuit product to another device (i.e. a pairing of the “desired” RFID tag with the RFID reader, paragraph [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections presented in the prior office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights