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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 13, 2023, August 10, 2023, September 4, 2023, May 14, 2024, July 10, 2025, and November 7, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 1, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 1, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-13 & 15 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 14 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, please refer to pp. 6-9 of Applicant’s remarks, filed July 1, 2026, that prior art references with respect to the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1, under U.S.C. § 103, Thuries et al. (US 2020/0059203A1, hereinafter, Thuries), in view of Wu et al. (US 2009/0224786A1, hereinafter, Wu), in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0160946A1, hereinafter, Kim), and further in view of Fasenfest (US 2016/0226124 A1, hereinafter, Fasenfest), have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, in light of the amendment(s), a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Thuries, in view of Kim, and further in view of Srirattana et al. (US 2017/0317395 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 2, 2017, hereinafter, Srirattana), and Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. Therefore, the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1,and dependent claims 2-13 & 15, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained. Updated rejections based on amended features follow.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 6, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries et al. (US 2020/0059203A1, Pub. Date Feb. 20, 2020, hereinafter, Thuries), in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0160946A1, Fil. Date Nov. 7, 2022, hereinafter, Kim), and further in view of Srirattana et al. (US 2017/0317395 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 2, 2017, hereinafter, Srirattana).
Regarding independent claim 1, Thuries, teaches:
A radio frequency circuit having error detection capability ([Abstract], [0001], [0033], & [Claim1]), comprising:
an element under test, disposed on the base plate, comprising an output port to output an RF signal (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0031]-[0041], & [0053]: discloses a differential power amplifier 205 (Element Under Test) on an Integrated Circuit (IC) 201 connected to the PCB 204 (base plate), amplifier has output paths 206/207 (output port));
a controller, disposed on the base plate, electrically connected to the sensing line (Figs. 2, 4, & 5; [0004]-[0005], [0031]-[0041], & [0052]-[0053]), and adapted for determining a state of the element under test according to the induction signal (Figs. 5, 7, & 15; [0031]-[0042], & [0050]-[0053]: controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 to analyze signals and determine connection faults and error/failure state of the element).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
763
1051
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
696
1008
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
954
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
a base plate, having a first surface;
a transmission line, disposed on the first surface of the base plate and electrically connected to the output port of the element under test;
a sensing line, parallel to the transmission line within a sensing area of the base plate, wherein the base plate further comprises a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a part of the sensing line is disposed on the first surface and penetrating the base plate and another part of the sensing line is disposed on the second surface, separated from the transmission line by a first length, and adapted for inducing the RF signal on the transmission line to generate an induction signal; and
However, Srirattana, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Srirattana by implementing the printed circuit board of Thuries (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0004]-[0005] & [0031]-[0033]: discloses a Printer Circuit Board (PCB) 204, PCB is the base plate and has a first surface) and the dielectric base structure having a first surface of Srirattana ([0007]).
a base plate, having a first surface ([0007]: Thuries discloses the PCB base plate, while Srirattana details the dielectric base structure having a first surface);
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Srirattana by implementing the connected transmission lines of Thuries (Figs. 2 & 4; [0004]-[0005], [0031]-[0041] & [0053]: the EUT outputs connect via connections (e.g., ball bonds 211) to external circuitry (PCB 204)) and the disposition of the transmission lines on the first surface of Srirattana ([0007]).
a transmission line, disposed on the first surface of the base plate and electrically connected to the output port of the element under test ([0007]: Thuries teaches the connected transmission lines while Srirattana discloses the specific disposition of the transmission lines on the first surface);
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Srirattana by implementing the directional couplers of Thuries ([0045]) and Srirattana ([0003]).
a sensing line, parallel to the transmission line within a sensing area of the base plate (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0003], [0007]-[0009], [0011], [0015]-[0017], [0039], [0043]-[0044], & [0049]: directional couplers inherently utilize parallel sensing lines to couple with the primary transmission lines),
wherein the base plate further comprises a second surface opposite to the first surface ([Abstract], [0007], & [0011]: teaches the opposing second surface of the dielectric base plate), and another part of the sensing line is disposed on the second surface, separated from the transmission line by a first length ([Abstract], [0007], [0011], [0013], [0015], [0044]-[0046], [Claim 1], [Claim 6], [Claim 7], [Claim 8], & [Claim 16]: teaches the sensing line on the second surface, separated by the dielectric thickness (first length)),
and adapted for inducing the RF signal on the transmission line to generate an induction signal ([Abstract], [0002]-[0005], [0007], [0010]-[0011], [0013], [0015], [0038]-[0039], [0041], [0045], [0066], [0069]-[0072], [0075]-[0077], [Claim 1], [Claim 8], [Claim 13], [Claim 14], & [Claim 16]: gap geometry is specifically adapted for inductive/capacitive signal extraction); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directional sensing couplers of Thuries by implementing the opposing-surface dielectric layout taught by Srirattana. Thuries discloses the primary RF error detection circuit but lacks the base plate comprising a second surface opposite the first surface, with the sensing line disposed on the second surface and separated from the transmission line by a first length to induce the RF signal. Srirattana teaches an electromagnetic coupler comprising a dielectric layer 120 having a first surface with a main transmission line 110 and a second, opposite surface with a coupled sensing line 112 separated by the dielectric thickness. The motivation to combine is to stabilize the coupling factor and counteract manufacturing process variations in the dielectric thickness, improving the accuracy of the power measurement. This modification represents a predictable variation, applying a known structural multi-layer technique to a known RF fault device to yield reliable electromagnetic coupling (KSR).
However, Kim, further teaches:
and a part of the sensing line is disposed on the first surface and penetrating the base plate ([0012]-[0013], [0035], [0045], [0049]-[0050], [Claim 2], & [Claim 3]: teaches the detection output portion of the sensing line penetrating the base plate as via holes to reach the upper (first) surface)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thuries and Srirattana by forming a portion of the sensing line as a penetrating via hole to reach the first surface, as taught by Kim. The combination of Thuries and Srirattana lacks a part of the sensing line is disposed on the first surface and penetrating the base plate. Kim teaches an RF sensing module where the detection output terminals 214/216, which form the output portion of the sensing line, are formed in the shape of via holes that penetrate the substrate to protrude to an upper surface. The motivation for this modification is to efficiently route the induced RF signal from the internal second surface back to the primary first surface, allowing for direct connection to surface-mounted evaluation components. Incorporating Kim’s penetrating via holes constitutes a substitution of standard via structures for multi-layer routing, a known technique to improve similar devices by conserving horizontal planar space (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], & [Claim1]), further comprising:
a sensor, disposed on the base plate (Fig. 4; [Abstract], [0004], [0026]-[0028], [0030], [0032]-[0035], [0037]-[0040], [0042], [0044]-[0048], [0052]-[0053], [Claim 1], [Claim 5], [Claim 8], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], [Claim 15], & [Claim 16]: discloses sensors (power detectors 208/209) disposed within the embedded circuit architecture directly on the PCB base plate), electrically connected to the sensing line and the controller (Fig. 4; [0026], [0030], [0035], [0045], [0047]-[0048], [0057], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 14], & [Claim 15]: teaches the physical and electrical connection of the sensors (power detectors) to both the sensing line (directional couplers) and the on-board controller), and configured to generate a determination signal according to the induction signal ([Abstract], [0032], [0034]-[0035], [0040], [0044]-[0046], & [0053]: power detector sensor processes the extracted induction signal and converts it into a measurable power value (the determination signal) for the controller), wherein the controller (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0013], [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046] & [0052]-[0053]: controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 to analyze signals and determine connection faults) determines the state of the element under test according to the determination signal (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [Abstract], [0027]-[0029], [0031]-[0041], [0052]-[0053], & [Claim 1]: steps 1005 & 1008, controller 280 performs this determination, uses power detectors 208 & 209 (sensors) receive the coupled RF signal (induction signal from the directional coupler) and generate fault signals indicative of the power level (determination signal), analyze signals and determine connection faults to determine the state of the element under test, from the power detector compares the power level to a threshold to determine if a connection failure has occurred).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0026], [0033] & [Claim1]), wherein in response to the induction signal not being generated (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0027]-[0029], [0031]-[0041], & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1005 & 1006, controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 (sensors) to receive the coupled RF signal (induction signal from the directional coupler) and generate fault signals indicative of the power level (determination signal), analyze signals and determine connection faults to determine the state of the element under test, from the power detector compares the power level to a threshold to determine if a connection failure has occurred, Flowchart Steps 1005-1006), the controller (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0031]-[0041], [0052]-[0053], & [Claim 1]: controller 280) is further configured to determine that the element under test is in a malfunction state (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0027]-[0029], [0032]-[0041], & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1005, 1006, & 1009, controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 (sensors) receive the coupled RF signal (induction signal from the directional coupler) and generate fault signals indicative of the power level (determination signal), analyze signals and determine connection faults to determine the state of the element under test, from the power detector compares the power level to a threshold to determine if a connection failure has occurred); and in response to the induction signal being generated (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1008 & 1010, controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 (sensors) receive the coupled RF signal (induction signal from the directional coupler) and will not generate fault signals if measured power level (determination signal) is above the set threshold, analyze signals and determine if there are connection faults or no connection faults present to determine the state of the element under test, from the power detector compares the power level to a threshold to determine if a connection failure has occurred or not, Flowchart Steps 1005 & 1008-1010), the controller is further configured to determine that the element under test is in a normal state (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1008 & 1010, controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 (sensors) receive the coupled RF signal (induction signal from the directional coupler) and will not generate fault signals if measured power level (determination signal) is above the set threshold, analyze signals and determine if there are connection faults or no connection faults present to determine the state of the element under test, from the power detector compares the power level to a threshold to determine if a connection failure has occurred or not, Flowchart Steps 1005 & 1008-1010).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2009/0224786A1, Pub. Date Sep. 10, 2008, hereinafter, Wu).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001] & [Claim1]), further comprising:
and the controller (Fig. 5; [0006], [0031]-[0041], & [0052]-[0053]: controller 280) determines the state of the element under test (Figs. 5, 7,& 15; [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], & [0052]-[0053]: controller 280, uses power detectors 208 & 209 to analyze signals and determine connection faults) according to the determination signal (Fig. 5; [0003]-[0006], [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], & [0050]-[0053]: provides the controller logic, utilizing the measurement feedback (determination signal) to make a final determination on the failure state of the element under test).
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
a connector, disposed on the base plate, coupled to the sensing line, and adapted for connecting to a sensor;
wherein in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, the sensor is adapted for generating a determination signal according to the induction signal,
However, Wu, further teaches:
a connector, disposed on the base plate, coupled to the sensing line (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0002], [0004]-[0005], [0012]-[0018], & [0021]: discloses a connector (socket/pad 42) and a second pad 44 disposed on the PCB 41 (base plate), coupled to the RF testing circuit (transmission line 48 (sensing line)), pads are connectors for the testing system, physically adapted to connect to an external sensor (testing probe 20/apparatus 30)), and adapted for connecting to a sensor (Fig. 2; [0012]-[0018] & [0021]: first pad 42 is electrically connected to testing probe 20);
wherein in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, the sensor is adapted for generating a determination signal according to the induction signal ([0005] & [0013]-[0015]: the sensor (testing probe/apparatus) receives the induced RF signals from the connector and evaluates them to generate a determination of power acceptability (determination signal)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the primary combination by implementing Wu’s pad/socket connectors and external testing probe sensors at the output of the sensing lines. The combination of Thuries, Srirattana, and Kim discloses a multi-layer RF error detection circuit but lacks a distinct connector disposed on the base plate coupled to the sensing line and adapted for connecting an external sensor that generates a determination signal for the controller. Wu discloses a radio frequency testing system comprising a connector (pad 42 or socket) disposed on a printed circuit board 41, coupled to an RF testing circuit, and adapted for connecting to a testing probe 20 and determination signals. This predictable variation applies a known technique to improve similar devices by allowing diagnostic equipment to easily and reliably interface with the RF circuit board. The motivation for incorporating Wu’s connector and sensor arrangement is to provide a standardized physical testing interface that improves diagnostic efficiency and simplifies the verification of the RF element’s power and fault state (KSR).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, in view of Wu, and further in view of Warmack et al. (US 2019/0049509 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 14, 2019, hereinafter, Warmack).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 2 ([Abstract], [0001], & [Claim1]), electrically connected to a first voltage source on the base plate to receive a first voltage (Figs. 2 & 4; [0004]-[0005], [0031]-[0041], & [0050]-[0053]: switches 230 & 232 and power detectors 208 & 209 are interpreted as conductive structures connected to sensing lines (output paths 206 & 207) and are electrically connected to the power amplifier 205, where controller 280 is connected to power detectors 208 and 209 to set a defined power level at the power detectors and to control the threshold levels of power detectors 208 and 209, and all components are mounted and electrically connected on the base plate, interpreted as PCB 204);
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the connector comprises: a first conductive structure, electrically connected to the sensing line; and a second conductive structure, electrically connected to a first voltage source on the base plate to receive a first voltage;
wherein in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor, the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure abut against each other;
in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure clamp the sensor.
However, Warmack, further teaches:
wherein the connector comprises: a first conductive structure, electrically connected to the sensing line (Fig. 9; [0017]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], & [0030]-[0033]: discloses a testing connector comprising a first conductive structure, one of the spring contacts shown in the clamp jaws of Fig. 9); and a second conductive structure (Fig. 9; [0017]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], & [0027]-[0033]: discloses a second conductive structure (the opposing spring contact)), electrically connected to a first voltage source on the base plate to receive a first voltage (Fig. 9; [0027]-[0033]: discloses a second conductive structure (the opposing spring contact) electrically connected to a voltage/power source 410A to inject testing current/voltage);
wherein in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor, the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure abut against each other (Fig. 9; [0006]-[0007], [0013]-[0015], [0017]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], & [0030]-[0033]: the contact jaws are spring-biased together, the first and second conductive structures physically abut (touch) each other when the connector is empty/disconnected);
in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure clamp the sensor (Fig. 9; [0006]-[0007], [0013]-[0015], [0017]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], & [0030]-[0033]: when engaged with a mating test component (the sensor, via kinematic inversion), the spring-biased conductive structures separate and physically clamp it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board-mounted RF testing connector of Wu by incorporating the spring-biased, abutting, and clamping dual-contact structures taught by Warmack via a standard kinematic inversion mounting the clamp on the base plate. The combination of Thuries, Srirattana, Kim, and Wu discloses an RF error detection circuit utilizing a test connector but lacks a connector comprising first and second conductive structures that are tied to a sensing line and a voltage source, abut against each other when disconnected, and physically clamp the sensor when connected. Warmack teaches a dual-contact electromechanical connection apparatus comprising a first conductive structure and a second conductive structure (spring contacts) connected to a voltage source 410A, wherein the contacts are spring-biased to abut each other when disconnected and separate to physically clamp a mating test component when connected. This modification represents a substitution of one known test connector interface (a flat test pad) with another known connector interface (a spring-biased dual-contact clamp) to achieve a predictable variation. The motivation for this substitution is to provide a mechanically secure testing interface that resists accidental disconnection and ensures reliable electrical continuity through physical clamping before initiating high-frequency RF measurements (KSR).
Claims 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, in view of Wu, and further in view of Slater (US 2023/0194597 A1, Fil. Date Apr. 28, 2021, hereinafter, Slater).
Regarding dependent claims 4 & 7, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claims 2 & 6 ([Abstract], [0001], & [Claim 1]),
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the sensor comprises:
an amplifier, configured to amplify the induction signal to produce an output signal; and
an analog to digital converter, coupled to the amplifier and configured to convert the output signal output by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form.
However, Slater, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Slater by implementing the power detectors of Thuries ([Abstract], [0004], [0026]-[0028], [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0042], [0044]-[0047], [0052]-[0053], [Claim 1], [Claim 2], [Claim 5], [Claim 7], [Claim 8], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], [Claim 15], [Claim 16], & [Claim 19]) and the measurement circuit of Slater ([0041], [0056]-[0062], & [0065]).
wherein the sensor comprises (Fig. 4; [0041], [0056]-[0062], & [0065]: continues the structure of the external sensing/measurement apparatus utilized to read the induction signal):
an amplifier, configured to amplify the induction signal to produce an output signal (Fig. 4; [0041] , [0056]-[0063], & [0065]: teaches an amplifier 226 within the testing sensor that receives the induced/coupled test signal from the electrodes and amplifies it to produce an output signal); and
an analog to digital converter, coupled to the amplifier and configured to convert the output signal output by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form (Fig. 4; [0041] , [0056]-[0063], & [0065]: teaches an ADC 232 coupled downstream of the amplifier 226, the ADC converts the amplified analog signal into a digital signal (determination signal) that indicates to the processing unit whether the path is functioning properly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external sensor of the primary combination by incorporating the amplifier and ADC measurement circuit taught by Slater. The combination of Thuries, Srirattana, Kim, and Wu discloses an RF error detection circuit utilizing an external testing sensor, but lacks a sensor comprising an amplifier to amplify the induction signal and a coupled analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to convert the output into a digital determination signal. Slater teaches a testing unit (sensor) comprising an amplifier 226 configured to amplify a coupled test signal to produce an output signal into the digital domain and to provide a digital determination signal to a processing unit. This modification represents the substitution of standard analog evaluation components with digital processing circuitry, applying a known technique to improve similar devices. The motivation for this substitution is to improve diagnostic efficiency and signal processing accuracy by converting weak noise-susceptible analog induction signals into robust digital data for reliable evaluation by the controller (KSR).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, in view of Wu, in view of Warmack, and further in view of Moilanen (US 2018/0048100 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 15, 2018, hereinafter, Moilanen).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 3 ([Abstract], [0001], & [Claim1]),
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the first conductive structure comprises:
a first conductor reed;
a first conductor plate, having a first end and a second end connected to the sensing line; and
a capacitor, electrically connected to the first end of the first conductor plate and the first conductor reed respectively;
wherein in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor, the first conductor reed and the second conductive structure abut against each other.
However, Warmack, further teaches:
wherein the first conductive structure comprises (Fig. 9; [0017]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], & [0030]-[0033]: discloses a testing connector comprising a first conductive structure, one of the spring contacts shown in the clamp jaws of Fig. 9):
wherein in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor, the first conductor reed and the second conductive structure abut against each other (Fig. 9; [0006]-[0007], [0013]-[0015], [0017]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], & [0030]-[0033]: teaches the mechanical action wherein the spring contact (now specified as the reed) and the opposing structure are biased to abut/touch each other when empty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board-mounted RF testing connector of Wu by incorporating the spring-biased abutting and clamping dual-contact structures taught by Warmack via a standard kinematic inversion mounting the clamp on the base plate. The combination of Thuries, Srirattana, Kim, and Wu disclose an RF error detection circuit utilizing a test connector but lacks a connector comprising a first and second conductive structures that abut against each other when disconnected and physically clamp the sensor when connected. Warmack teaches a dual-contact electromechanical connection apparatus comprising a first conductive structure and a second conductive structure, such as spring contacts, connected to a voltage source 410A, wherein the contacts are spring-biased to abut each other when disconnected and separate to physically clamp a mating test component when connected. This modification represents a substitution of one known test connector interface with another known connector interface to achieve a predictable variation. The motivation for this substitution is to provide a mechanically secure testing interface that resists accidental disconnection and ensures reliable electrical continuity through physical clamping before initiating high-frequency RF measurements (KSR).
However, Moilanen, further teaches:
a first conductor reed (Fig. 11; [0003], [0018], [0026], & [0037]: teaches a flexible bending conductive strip (lamellar spring) which is the exact structural definition of a conductor reed);
a first conductor plate, having a first end and a second end connected to the sensing line ([0029]-[0031], [0035], [0053], [0055], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], & [Claim 12]: teaches integrating a rigid, flat conductive plate into the spring-contact assembly; connection to the sensing line is provided by the primary combination routing); and
a capacitor, electrically connected to the first end of the first conductor plate and the first conductor reed respectively ([0034]-[0036], [0053], [0055], [Claim 7], [Claim 8], & [Claim 15]: teaches a test connector stack-up where a capacitor is integrated directly into the assembly, electrically connecting/bridging the spring (reed) and the plate);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring-biased test connector jaw of Warmack by forming it as a composite assembly integrating the conductor reed, plate, and capacitor stack-up taught by Moilanen. The combination of Thuries, Srirattana, Kim, Wu, and Warmack discloses an RF testing interface with abutting and clamping conductive structures but lacks a first conductive structure comprising a conductor plate and a conducted reed bridged by an integrated capacitor. Moilanen teaches a test RF connector 120 comprising a contact structure having a bending conductive strip acting as a conductor reed 1332, a flat conductive plate 134, and an integrated capacitor 137 electrically bridging the spring and plate components. This modification represents a substitution of a standard solid contact jaw with an integrated capacitor-contact assembly to achieve a predictable variation. The motivation to incorporate Moilanen’s integrated capacitor, plate, and reed structure into the test clamp is to provide necessary DC signal blocking and high-frequency filtering directly at the physical connection interface, protecting downstream diagnostic sensors while saving planar space on the printed circuit board (KSR).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, and further in view of Fasenfest (US 2016/0226124 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 4, 2016, hereinafter, Fasenfest).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001] & [Claim1]),
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the first length is within a range from one-eighth of a line width of the transmission line to the line width of the transmission line.
However, Srirattana, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Srirattana in view of Fasenfest by implementing the wavelength (i.e., coupling section) of Fasenfest ([0028]-[0030]: optimize and tune coupling to achieve target characteristic impedances).
wherein the first length is within a range from one-eighth of a line width of the transmission line to the line width of the transmission line ([0052]: teaches modifying the geometry (the line width and the separation length) to optimize coupling and achieve target characteristic impedances, arriving to the width-to-length ratio is a matter of routine optimization of the known result-effective variables. See MPEP 2112.01; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) and MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of the first length to the transmission line width to fall within a range of one-eighth through routine experimentation. The combination of Thuries and Srirattana discloses a multi-layer RF coupling circuit comprising a sensing line separated from a transmission line by a first length, but lacks the first length being within a range from one-eighth of a line width to the line width of the transmission line. Srirattana teaches that the coupling factor and circuit performance are influenced by modifying the material and geometry, specifically noting the width of the lines and the separation distance. Furthermore, Fasenfest teaches tuning multi-layer RF transmission circuits to standard characteristic impedances, such as 50 Ohms. This represents the routine optimization of a result-effective variable to achieve a predictable variation, where the motivation is to match the characteristic impedance of the transmission line to standard system requirements while maintaining the desired electromagnetic coupling factor across the dielectric gap (KSR).
Claims 10-11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, and further in view of Slater.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0004],[0032]-[0035], [0052]-[0053], & [Claim1]), the radio frequency circuit further comprises at least one additional transmission line and at least one additional sensing line disposed on the base plate (Fig. 9; [0004], [0030], [0032]-[0035], [0039], [0042], [0045], [0047]-[0051], & [Claim 8]: teaches multiple transmission lines (paths 206/207) and multiple sensing lines (directional couplers 260/262) disposed on the circuit base plate), the at least one additional transmission line is electrically connected to an output port of the multiplexer (Fig. 4; [0004], [0030], [0032]-[0035], [0039], [0042], [0045], & [0047]-[0051]: under the substitution of a multiplexer for the amplifier, the additional transmission line (path 207) connects directly to the additional output port of the multiplexer), the sensing line and the at least one additional transmission line are adapted for inducing the RF signal on the transmission line and the at least one additional sensing line to generate the induction signal ([0004], [0030], [0045], [0047]-[0048], & [0055]-[0059]: multiple directional couplers (sensing lines) are adapted to inductively extract/couple the RF signals from their respective transmission lines), and the controller is further configured to determine a state of the multiplexer according to the induction signal ([0004], [0031], [0035], [0053], [0039], [0050], & [0052]-[0053]: controller evaluates the induced signals from both sensing paths to determine the functional/failure state of the multi-port element under test).
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the element under test is a multiplexer, the at least one additional sensing line is parallel to the transmission line and one of the at least one additional transmission line within the sensing area and separated by a second length,
However, Slater, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Slater by implementing the multi-port RF component (amplifier) of Thuries ([Abstract] & [0004]).
wherein the element under test is a multiplexer ([0057] & [0060]: teaches the use of multiplexers in RF testing, substituting the amplifier for a multiplexer is an obvious variation to test standard routing components. See MPEP 2144.04),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-port element under test in Thuries (the differential power amplifier) by substituting it with a multiplexer as taught by Slater. The combination of Thuries, Kim, and Srirattana discloses an RF error detection circuit featuring multiple transmission lines (206/207) and multiple sensing lines (260/262) evaluating a multi-port element under test but lacks the element under test being a multiplexer where the additional transmission line connects to its output port. Slater teaches the implementation of multiplexers in RF testing circuits to selectively couple and route multiple RF signals for measurement. This modification represents the substitution of one known multi-port RF integrated circuit component for another, applying a known technique to improve similar devices. The motivation for this substitution is to leverage the multi-path directional coupler architecture of Thuries to efficiently verify the signal routing and connection integrity of an RF multiplexer, ensuring reliable signal distribution in complex testing environments (KSR).
However, Srirattana, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Srirattana by implementing the directional couplers of Thuries which inherently use parallel coupling ([0045]).
the at least one additional sensing line is parallel to the transmission line and one of the at least one additional transmission line within the sensing area and separated by a second length (Fig. 1; [0003]-[0004]: teaches the parallel arrangement separated by a defined length (dielectric thickness) for inductive coupling),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multiple directional couplers of Thuries by implementing the parallel, length-separated dielectric coupling geometry taught by Srirattana. Thuries discloses a RF testing circuit utilizing at least one additional transmission line (206/207) and at least one additional sensing line (260/262) adapted for inducing an RF signal but lacks geometric details establishing that the additional sensing lines are parallel and separated from the transmission lines by a defined second length. Srirattana teaches an electromagnetic coupling mechanism wherein parallel or overlapped transmission and sensing lines (110/112) are separated by a specific length defined by a dielectric material (120) to generate an induced signal. This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices to achieve a predictable variation in RF coupling structures. The motivation for implementing this separated parallel geometry is to stabilize the electromagnetic coupling factor between the lines, ensuring accurate and reliable induction signal extraction across all multiplexed test paths (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 10 ([Abstract], [0001], [0032]-[0035], [0052]-[0053], & [Claim1]),
the controller is further configured to (Fig. 5 & 15; [0031]-[0042] & [0050]-[0053]: controller 280):
determine that the multiplexer that transmits the RF signal (Fig. 5; [0031]-[0042]: teaches a multiplexer function via its disabling circuit (switches (230) and (232) interpreted as a multiplexer and/or Slater’s multiplexer), selects which of the two transmission lines (206,207) is an active transmission line) corresponding to a power intensity of the induction signal of the first line less than a first threshold value is in a malfunction state (Fig. 15; [0031]-[0042] & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1005, 1006, 1007, if “the measured power of the signal from the enabled output path side is faulty, for example, the measured power is below a set threshold” and the answer is “Yes” (the power is less than the threshold), the process moves to step 1006, where “a break in the contact between integrated circuit 201 and PCB 204 is detected”, where the “break in the contact” is the “malfunction state”, the controller makes this determination by comparing the power intensity of the signal to the threshold value, test is performed while the multiplexer (disabling switches (230) and (232)) are actively routing the induction signal, “However, if the measure value is above the set threshold, the flowchart proceeds to 1007…”),
determine that the multiplexer that transmits the RF signal (Fig. 5; [0031]-[0042]: teaches a multiplexer function via its disabling circuit (switches (230) and (232) interpreted as a multiplexer and/or Slater’s multiplexer), selects which of the two transmission lines (206,207) is an active transmission line) corresponding to the power intensity of the induction signal of the first line greater than or equal to the first threshold value is in a normal state (Fig. 15; [0031]-[0042] & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1007, 1008, 1010, if “the measured value is above the set threshold, the flowchart proceeds to 1007, where the disabled/enabled paths are reversed to verify that the circuit is not faulty in this alternative configuration. Therefore, at 1008, the flowchart measures the power of the signal from the enabled output path at the power detector for the other disabled output path. However, if the measured value is determined to be above the threshold at 1008, then at 1010 the circuit is deemed to be operating correctly without a malfunction that would prevent successful operation and the circuit is deemed to be operable in a normal manner”, the controller makes this determination by comparing the power intensity of the signal to the threshold value, test is performed while the multiplexer (disabling/enabling switches (230) and (232)) are actively routing the induction signal).
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein a first output port of the multiplexer transmits the RF signal through the transmission line and a first line in the at least one additional transmission line,
wherein the first threshold value corresponding to the sensing line and the at least one additional sensing line have a weight relationship based on a ratio of distances from the first line to the sensing line and the at least one additional sensing line; and
However, Slater, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Slater by substituting the multi-port RF component (amplifier) of Thuries (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0031]-[0042], & [0044]-[0047]) with Slater’s multiplexer.
wherein a first output port of the multiplexer transmits the RF signal through the transmission line and a first line in the at least one additional transmission line ([0057] & [0060]: as established previously, substituting the amplifier of Thuries with Slater’s multiplexer yields a configuration where the multiplexer transmits signals across multiple paths/transmission lines),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-port element under test in Thuries by substituting its power amplifier with a multiplexer as taught by Slater. Thuries discloses an RF error detection circuit evaluating an element under test using power intensity thresholds, but lacks the element being a multiplexer where a first output port transmits the RF signal across multiple transmission lines. Slater teaches the implementation of multiplexers in RF testing circuits to selectively couple and route multiple RF signals to various transmission paths for measurement. This modification represents the substitution of one known multi-port RF integrated circuit component for another to achieve a predictable variation. The motivation for this substitution is to leverage the multi-path threshold detection architecture of Thuries to verify the signal routing and connection integrity of an RF multiplexer, ensuring reliable signal distribution in complex testing environments (KSR).
However, Srirattana, further teaches:
wherein the first threshold value corresponding to the sensing line and the at least one additional sensing line have a weight relationship based on a ratio of distances from the first line to the sensing line and the at least one additional sensing line ([0041], [0045], [0047]-[0049], [0051]-[0052], [0058], [Claim 1], [Claim 8], [Claim 16], & [Claim 20]: teaches that coupling strength is dictated by the geometry and position/distance between lines. To accurately set the power threshold value for multiple sensing lines, the system must mathematically weight the thresholds based on the respective distance (coupling factor) of each line for the transmitter); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the threshold determination logic of Thuries by scaling the expected threshold values according to the distance-based coupling factors taught by Srirattana. Thuries discloses evaluating induced signal power intensities against a first threshold value to determine malfunction or normal states, but lacks configuring the threshold to have a weight relationship based on a ratio of distances from the transmitting line to the sensing lines. Srirattana teaches that electromagnetic coupling factors are influenced by the physical position, geometry, and distance separating the main transmission lines (110) and coupling sensing lines (112). This predictable variation utilizes a known technique to improve similar devices by calibrating fault-detection thresholds across multiple physically distinct sensing paths. The motivation to apply this distance-based weight relationship is to improve detection accuracy and prevent false malfunction readings by mathematically accounting for the varying physical distances between the transmission lines and their respective directional couplers (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0026], [0033]-[0035], & [Claim1]),
the controller is further configured to (Fig. 5 & 15; [0004], [0031]-[0041], & [0050]-[0053]: teaches a controller evaluating a power amplifier (component generating the signal that creates the induction signal). If the measured power intensity falls below a predefined threshold value, the controller registers a malfunction/failure state):
determine that the amplifier ([0004], [0035], & [0050]-[0053]: power amplifier 205) that generates the induction signal (Fig. 15; [0004], [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046] & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1005, 1006, 1007, if “the measured power of the signal from the enabled output path side is faulty, for example, the measured power is below a set threshold” and the answer is “Yes” (the power is less than the threshold), the process moves to step 1006, where “a crack in the contact between integrated circuit 201 and PCB 204 is detected”, where the “break in the contact” is the “malfunction state”, the controller makes this determination by comparing the power intensity of the signal to the threshold value, test is performed while the multiplexer (disabling switches (230) and (232)) are actively routing the induction signal, “However, if the measure value is above the set threshold, the flowchart proceeds to 1007…”) having a power intensity less than a third threshold value is in a malfunction state (Fig. 15; [0004], [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046] & [0050]-[0053]: steps 1005, 1006, 1007, if “the measured power of the signal from the enabled output path side is faulty, for example, the measured power is below a set threshold” and the answer is “Yes” (the power is less than the threshold), the process moves to step 1006, where “a crack in the contact between integrated circuit 201 and PCB 204 is detected”, where the “break in the contact” is the “malfunction state”, the controller makes this determination by comparing the power intensity of the signal to the threshold value (interpreted as third threshold value), test is performed while the multiplexer (disabling switches (230) and (232)) are actively routing the induction signal, “However, if the measure value is above the set threshold, the flowchart proceeds to 1007…”), wherein the third threshold value is determined according to a gain of the amplifier ([0004], [0034]-[0035], & [0050]-[0053]: in RF engineering, the expected output intensity of an amplifier is a direct mathematical function of its gain, therefore, establishing a third threshold value to detect an amplifier malfunction inherently requires the threshold to be determined according to the gain of that specific amplifier, and represents the routine optimization of a known result-effective variable); and
determine that the amplifier that generates the induction signal having the power intensity greater than or equal to the third threshold value is in a normal state (Fig. 15; [0004], [0034]-[0035], [0050]-[0053], & [0080]-[0084]: teaches the inverse logic; if the generated power intensity meets or exceeds the threshold (detected), the controller determines the amplifier is functioning properly in a normal state).
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the element under test is a multiplexer,
However, Slater, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Slater by substituting the multi-port RF component (amplifier) of Thuries (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0031]-[0042], & [0044]-[0047]) with Slater’s multiplexer.
wherein the element under test is a multiplexer ([0057] & [0060]: teaches utilizing a multiplexer in an RF test circuit to selectively route test signals across multiple paths),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the testing circuit of Thuries by integrating a multiplexer as taught by Slater and optimizing the controller’s third threshold value to be mathematically determined according to the specific gain of the amplifier generating the signal. Thuries discloses an RF testing circuit utilizing a controller to determine malfunction or normal states of an amplifier based on whether the generated signal’s power intensity meets a threshold value determined by expected output parameters but lacks the element under test including a multiplexer. Slater teaches utilizing a multiplexer within RF testing circuits to route and selectively couple testing signals across multiple paths. This modification represents the substitution of known RF routing components alongside the predictable variation of a result-effective variable (calibrating threshold against amplifier gain) to achieve an accurate detection system. The motivation for this modification is to improve diagnostic efficiency by ensuring the fault-detection thresholds mathematically align with the hardware’s amplification capabilities, preventing false malfunction readings when routing signals through the multiplexed test architecture (KSR).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, in view of Slater, and further in view of Yang (US 2010/0327990 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 30, 2010, hereinafter, Yang).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 11 ([Abstract], [0001], [0004], [0032]-[0035], [0045]-[0046], [0052]-[0053], & [Claim1]),
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the first line in the at least one additional transmission line is parallel to the transmission line connected to a second output port of the multiplexer within the sensing area and a second line in the at least one additional transmission line and separated by a third length,
the controller is further configured to:
determine that no leakage occurs between the first line and the second line that generates the induction signal and determine that the leakage occurs between the first line and the second line that generates the induction signal having a power intensity less than a second threshold value; and
determine that the leakage occurs between the first line and the second line that generates the induction signal having the power intensity greater than or equal to a second threshold value.
However, Srirattana, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Thuries and Slater in view of Srirattana by substituting the multi-port RF component (amplifier) of Thuries (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0031]-[0042], & [0044]-[0047]) with Slater’s multiplexer routing to multiple output lines ([0057] & [0060]).
wherein the first line in the at least one additional transmission line is parallel to the transmission line connected to a second output port of the multiplexer within the sensing area and a second line in the at least one additional transmission line and separated by a third length ([Abstract], [0003]-[0007], [0009], [0011], [0013]-[0015], [0017], [0038]-[0041], [0043], [0045], [0050]-[0052], [0064], [Claim 7], & [Claim 20]: teaches the geometric arrangement of running multiple RF transmission and sensing lines parallel to each other within a coupling area, separated by specific lengths to manage electromagnetic induction),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-port RF circuit of Thuries by substituting the power amplifier with a multiplexer as taught by Slater, and implementing the parallel, length-separated dielectric coupling geometry for the sensing lines as taught by Srirattana. Thuries discloses an RF testing circuit utilizing multiple transmission lines (206/207) and sensing lines (260/262) but lacks the element under test being a multiplexer and lacks geometric details establishing that the sensing lines are parallel and separated from the transmission lines by a defined length. Slater teaches the implementation of multiplexers in RF testing circuits to selectively couple and route multiple RF signals to various transmission paths for measurement. Furthermore, Srirattana teaches an electromagnetic coupling mechanism wherein parallel or overlapped transmission and sensing lines (110/112) are separated by specific length defined by a dielectric material 120 to generate an induced signal. This predictable variation applies the substitution of known multi-port RF routing components alongside established coupling geometries to yield a highly accurate RF fault detection architecture. The motivation for this combination is to efficiently verify signal routing integrity across complex multiplexed testing environments while ensuring stabilized electromagnetic coupling factors for reliable induction signal extraction (KSR).
However, Yang, further teaches:
the controller is further configured to (Fig. 4; [0034]: controller 480):
determine that no leakage (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037] & [0056]: leakage signal detector 470, detects whether or not a leakage is present) occurs between the first line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037] & [0056]: first transmission leakage signal 10) and the second line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037] & [0056]: second transmission leakage signal 20) that generates the induction signal (Fig. 4; [Abstract], [0034]-[0037], & [0056]: control signal interpreted as the induction signal) having a power intensity less than a second threshold value (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037], [0043], [0053], [0056], [Claim 13], & [Claim 14]: teaches a controller evaluating a detected RF transmission leakage signal against a threshold value. If the leakage signal power drops below the threshold, the controller determines the leakage is mitigated/acceptable (no actionable leakage)); and
determine that the leakage (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037] & [0056]: leakage signal detector 470, detects whether or not a leakage is present) occurs between the first line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037] & [0056]) and the second line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0037] & [0056]) that generates the induction signal (Fig. 4; [Abstract], [0034]-[0037], & [0056]: control signal interpreted as the induction signal) having the power intensity greater than or equal to a second threshold value ([0034]-[0037], [0043], [0053], [0056], [Claim 10], [Claim 13], & [Claim 14]: teaches the inverse logic: if the measured power intensity of the induced leakage signal does not fall below the threshold (i.e., is greater than or equal to the threshold), the controller determines that active signal leakage is occurring and takes corrective action).
PNG
media_image5.png
949
1309
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller logic of the multiplexed RF circuit of Thuries and Slater to incorporate the transmission leakage threshold detection logic taught by Yang. The combination of Thuries, Kim, Slater, and Srirattana discloses a multi-line RF testing circuit utilizing parallel transmission lines and directional couplers, but lacks a controller configured to determine if signal leakage occurs between the parallel lines based on whether an induced signal’s power intensity is greater than or less than a second threshold value. Yang teaches an RF apparatus featuring a directional coupler 760 and a controller 780 configured to detect transmission leakage signals and evaluate them against a defined threshold value to determine if active leakage is occurring. This predictable variation utilizes a known technique to improve similar devices by applying standard threshold comparisons to detect unintended RF inductive leakage in closely routed transmission lines. The motivation for this modification is to improve circuit diagnostic reliability by accurately identifying unintended crosstalk between parallel multiplexer lines, ensuring proper signal isolation and preventing data corruption. In similar devices in the same way, a POSITA would find it obvious to try and combine, yielding predictable results, for an efficient RF error detection circuit (KSR).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Kim, in view of Srirattana, and further in view of Yamada (JP 2004245709 A, Pub. Date Sep. 2, 2004, hereinafter, Yamada).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0003]-[0006], [0026], [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0050]-[0053], & [Claim1]),
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the controller is further configured to connect a communication transceiver, and the communication transceiver is configured to transmit a malfunction state or the induction signal determined by the controller.
However, Yamada, further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to connect a communication transceiver ([0100]-[0101], [0103]-[0104], [0106]-[0107], [0109], & [0110]-[0112]: discloses a diagnosis system wherein a controller (CPU 902) is communicatively coupled to a communication transceiver (Communication I/F interface 908) via a data bus),
The Examiner is combining Thuries in view of Yamada by implementing the controller that determines a failure or malfunction state of Thuries ([Abstract] & [0004]-[0006]) with Yamada’s communication transceiver (Communication I/F interface).
and the communication transceiver is configured to transmit a malfunction state or the induction signal determined by the controller (Figs. 1A & 10; [0100]-[0101], [0103]-[0104], [0106]-[0107], [0109], & [0110]-[0112]: teaches utilizing the communication transceiver (Communication I/F interface 908) to transmit the determined malfunction state or fault diagnosis results over a network such as the internet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RF failure detection system of Thuries by incorporating the communication transceiver taught by Yamada. Thuries discloses an embedded test circuitry within an RF circuit featuring a controller capable of determining a connection failure, but lacks configuring the controller to connect to a communication transceiver to transmit the determined malfunction state. Yamada discloses a malfunction diagnosis apparatus featuring a controller (CPU 902) connected to a communication transceiver (Communication I/F interface 908) configured to transmit a determined malfunction state or diagnostic result over an external network (Computer system 900). This modification represents the application of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding a predictable variation in how diagnostic fault data is extracted and communicated from an embedded circuit. A POSITA would be motivated to make this combination to enable the RF circuit to remotely report its detected malfunction state, improving the system’s external monitoring capabilities and facilitating prompt maintenance or fail-safe interventions (KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 September 10, 2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights