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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 13, 2023, August 10, 2023, September 04, 2023, May 14, 2024, July 10, 2025, and November 07, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 04, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 & 15 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 14 is canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claim(s) did not need to overcome any objection or 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, none were set forth previously in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 05, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, please refer to pp.6-9 of applicant’s remarks, filed February 04, 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), and in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0160946A1, hereinafter, Kim), 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 Wu, in view of Kim, and further in view of Fasenfest (US 2016/0226124 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 4, 2016, hereinafter, Fasenfest), 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13 & 15 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 Wu et al. (US 2009/0224786A1, Pub. Date Sep. 10, 2008, hereinafter Wu), in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0160946A1, Fil. Date Nov. 7, 2022, hereinafter Kim), and further in view of Fasenfest (US 2016/0226124 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 4, 2016, hereinafter, Fasenfest).
Regarding independent claim 1, Thuries, teaches:
A radio frequency circuit having error detection capability ([Abstract], [0001] & [Claim1]), comprising:
a base plate, having a first surface (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);
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 transmission line, disposed on the first surface of the base plate and electrically connected to the output port of the element under test (Disclosed in combination: 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); Fasenfest: [0037]: discloses the transmission line to the first surface as well);
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).
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
702
988
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
954
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thuries, and Wu, are silent in regard to:
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 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, Kim, in combination with Fasenfest, further teach:
a sensing line, parallel to the transmission line within a sensing area of the base plate (Disclosed in combination: Kim: Figs. 3 & 4; [0044], [0048]-[0049] & [0051]-[0052]: voltage sensing plate 310 and current sensing inductor 320 are the sensing elements; Fasenfest: Fig. 4; [0042]), wherein the base plate further comprises a second surface opposite to the first surface, and 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 (Disclosed in combination: Kim: [0052]; Fasenfest: Fig.4; [0037] & [0042]); and
PNG
media_image6.png
640
729
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
570
632
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
601
955
media_image8.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 RF sensing structure of Kim by integrating the parallel sensing line directly onto the opposite surface of the printed circuit board, separated by the board’s pitch (substrate’s thickness), as taught by Fasenfest, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification would be to reduce manufacturing complexity, decrease the overall footprint (miniaturization) of the circuit, and improve the consistency of the electromagnetic coupling. By utilizing Fasenfest’s multi-layer PCB topology, a designer eliminates the need to manufacture and assemble a separate, external sensing module (as in Kim). Furthermore, using the built-in thickness (pitch) of the PCB as the separation distance provides a precise and constant coupling distance between the lines, which yields predictable and reliable inductive sensing results (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
wherein a pitch of the first surface and the second surface is the first length.
However, Fasenfest, further teaches:
wherein a pitch of the first surface and the second surface is the first length ([0036]-[0037]: the thickness “T” constitutes the pitch defining the first length separating the first surface 102 and opposite second surface 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to physically arrange the Thuries/Kim integrated error detection circuit using the opposing-surface multi-layer topology taught by Fasenfest, according to known methods. The motivation to incorporate Fasenfest’s structural layout into the Thuries/Kim system is to achieve a compact, monolithic RF error detection circuit. Thuries relies on a printed circuit board (base plate) to route the RF transmission lines. A POSITA would recognize that adding Kim’s parallel sensing line to the same surface would consume horizontal board space and potentially cause interference with other surface-mounted components. By routing the sensing line on the opposite surface separated by the board’s pitch (substrate’s thickness), as taught by Fasenfest, the designer utilizes the vertical 3D space of the existing multi-layer PCB. This is a simple substitution of one well-known RF routing technique for another, yielding the predictable result (KSR) of a compact error detection circuit that utilizes the thickness of the base plate to control the inductive coupling distance.
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]).
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;
However, Wu, further teaches:
a connector, disposed on the base plate, coupled to the sensing line (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0005] & [0012]-[0018] & [0021]: discloses a first pad 42 and a second pad 44 on the PCB 41 (base plate), coupled to the transmission line 48 (sensing line), pads are connectors for the testing system, testing probe 20), and adapted for connecting to a sensor (Fig. 2; [0012]- [0018] & [0021]: first pad 42 is electrically connected to testing probe 20);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, the sensor is adapted for generating a determination signal according to the induction signal, of Wu to Thuries, in order to attain and improve by integration, taking the induction signal collected by the sensing line from Wu’s conductor and routing it through a connection to a sensing unit for processing (taught by Kim) before routing the resultant signal for a modular RF error detection circuit, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Thuries, and Wu, are silent in regard to:
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, Kim, further teaches:
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 ([0045] & [0049]-[0053]: discloses the voltage sensing circuit part 360 and the current sensing circuit part 370, which are sensors, these circuits generate a detection signal that is attenuated to a level for measurement (determination signal) according to the capacitively/inductively coupled signal (induction signal)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, the sensor is adapted for generating a determination signal according to the induction signal, of Kim to Thuries and Wu, in order to attain and improve by combination, taking the induction signal collected by the sensing line from Wu’s conductor and routing it through a connection to a sensing unit for processing s taught by Kim, before routing the resultant signal to the controller (Thuries) to determine the EUT state, where using a pad or terminal (connector) for the signal output is a routine design choice and obvious practice in PCB implementation for a modular RF error detection circuit that would yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001] & [Claim1]), further comprising:
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).
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
a sensor, disposed on the base plate, electrically connected to the sensing line and the controller,
However, Wu, further teaches:
a sensor (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0007], [0012]-[0018], [0021] & [0024]: radio frequency circuit 40 designed to divert RF signals for testing), disposed on the base plate (Fig. 2; [0007]: RF testing circuit 40 disposed on circuit board 41), electrically connected to the sensing line and the controller (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0012]-[0018], [0021] & [0024]: RF testing circuit 40 connected to the RF signal source 10 (acting as the sensing line) and testing probe 20 which routes the signal to the testing apparatus 30, interpreted as the controller/processing unit),
PNG
media_image9.png
812
1316
media_image9.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 incorporate a sensor, disposed on the base plate, electrically connected to the sensing line, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, Wu’s approach of integrating an RF testing circuit 40 on a PCB connected via probe 20 to an external testing apparatus 30 to test RF signals. This confirms the motivation to integrate testing/sensing circuitry with external test equipment (controller on the PCB), the controller from Thuries, which processes a raw signal to generate determination signals (power levels) that the controller uses to determine the state of the element under test, would be adapted to use signals from the sensor, for a modular RF error detection circuit, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Thuries, and Wu, are silent in regard to:
and configured to generate a determination signal according to the induction signal,
However, Kim, further teaches:
and configured to generate a determination signal according to the induction signal ([0045] & [0050]-[0053]: taught by sensing circuits 360/370, generating a detection signal which is routed to detection output terminals 214/216 which is the 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 incorporate generating a determination signal according to the induction signal, of Kim to Thuries, and Kim, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, incorporating the modular sensing structure of Kim into the testing circuit of Thuries to enhance the power detection capability (e.g., to monitor the signal path) and provide a clear determination signal to the controller 221/280, where the combination would be further supported by Wu, which demonstrates a conventional approach of integrating an RF testing circuit 40 on a PCB connected via probe 20 to an external testing apparatus 30 to test RF signals. This confirms the motivation to integrate testing/sensing circuitry with external test equipment (controller on the PCB), the combination of the known RF testing structure of Thuries with the modular, dedicated signal sensor of Kim and the general RF testing context of Wu renders the claimed invention obvious, for a modular RF error detection circuit, and yield predictable results (KSR).
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, Wu, further teaches:
wherein the first length is within a range from one-eighth (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0007] & [0017]-[0018]: microstrip line 48 with defined impedance values) of a line width of the transmission line to the line width of the transmission line (Fig. 2; [Abstract] & [0017]-[0018]: microstrip line 48 with defined impedance values). As for the “first length is one-eighth of a line width of the transmission line to the line width of the transmission line”, the prior art is within the claimed ranges therefore it must exhibit that property. See MPEP 2112.01; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first length within a range from one-eighth of a line width of the transmission line to the line width of the transmission line, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve performance by adjusting Wu’s lengths into Thuries’ radio frequency error detection circuitry to enable tuning and minimizing parasitic effects would be obvious to try, and yield predictable results (KSR).
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).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0026], [0033]-[0035] & [Claim1]), wherein the element under test is a multiplexer (Fig. 5; [0031]-[0041]: teaches a multiplexer is the element under test, functions via its disabling circuit (switches (230) and (232) interpreted as a multiplexer/element under test), selects which of the two transmission lines (206,207) is an active transmission line),
the controller is further configured to (Fig. 5 & 15; [0031]-[0041] & [0050]-[0053]):
determine that the amplifier ([0050]-[0053]: power amplifier 205) that generates the induction signal (Fig. 15; [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; [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 ([0050]-[0053]); 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; [0080]-[0084]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0026], [0033]-[0035] & [Claim1]), wherein the controller (Figs. 5 & 15; [0031]-[0041] & [0050]-[0053]: controller 280) is further configured to connect (Figs. 2 & 4; [0004]-[0005] & [0031]-[0041]: PCB 204 is a base plate with a surface for mounting components electrically connecting the components) a communication transceiver (Fig. 2; [0003]-[0006]: differential transceiver 200), and the communication transceiver is configured to transmit a malfunction state (Fig. 2; [0003]-[0006]) or the induction signal determined by the controller (Figs. 5, 7, & 15; [0003]-[0006], [0031]-[0041], [0045]-[0046] & [0050]-[0053]: controller 280, uses power detectors 208,209 to analyze signals, such as the induction signal, and determine connection faults).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Wu, in view of Kim, in view of Biegon et al. (US 4647844, Pat. Date Mar. 3, 1987, hereinafter Biegon), and further in view of Fasenfest.
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,
However, Wu, further teaches:
wherein the connector (Fig. 2; [0005] & [0012]-[0018]: first pad 42 on the base plate PCB 41 for connecting to an external sensor, testing probe 20) comprises: a first conductive structure (Fig. 2; [0012]-[0018]: signal pad 420 interpreted as the first conductive structure), electrically connected to the sensing line (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0012]-[0018] & [0024]); and a second conductive structure (Fig. 2; [0012]-[0018]: signal pad 440 interpreted as the second conductive structure),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the connector with a first conductive structure, electrically connected to the sensing line, and a second conductive structure, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. In order to attain the connector with the first and second conductive structures, and by doing so, improve the signal isolation of the RF error detection circuitry, would be obvious to try, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
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, Biegon, further teaches:
wherein in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-47] & [Col. 6, ll. 6-29]: connectors 11 & 15, toroids 68,70, 72, & 74 abut when the fixture is closed with a “connector not being connected to the sensor”, the toroids when they are clamped together form full toroids which isolate the connectors 11 and 15 from the cable portion 13 of the cable assembly”, and sense circuit 16 (sensor) connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48 & 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit), the first conductive structure (Figs.1 & 5; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-48] & [Col. 6, ll. 53-65]: current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, and first conductive structure 68 & 70) and the second conductive structure (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-48], [Col. 6, ll. 6-29 & 53-65] & [Col. 7, ll. 58-68]: current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, and second conductive structure 72 & 74) abut against each other (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 6, ll. 6-29 & 45-68] & [Col. 7, ll. 1-2]: toroids 68, 70, 72, & 74 abut when the fixture is closed with a “connector not being connected to the sensor”);
in response to the connector (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col.4, lines 14-36]: 11 & 15) being connected to the sensor (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-47] & [Col. 6, ll. 6-29]: toroids 68, 70, 72, & 74 abut when the fixture is closed with a “connector being connected to the sensor”, and current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48 & 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, where the toroids conductively clamp the cable (cable connects to the sense circuit 16 via adapter boxes 12 & 14)), the first conductive structure (Figs. 1 & 5; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col.5, ll. 35-48] & [Col. 6, ll. 53-65]: current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, and first conductive structure 68,70) and the second conductive structure (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-48], [Col. 6, ll. 6-29 & 53-65] & [Col. 7, ll. 58-68]: current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, and second conductive structure 72,74) clamp the sensor (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-47], [Col. 6, ll. 6-29 & 45-68] & [Col. 7, ll. 1-2]: toroids 68,70, 72, & 74 abut when the fixture is closed with a “connector being connected to the sensor”, and current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48 & 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, where the toroids conductively clamp the cable (cable connects to the sense circuit 16 via adapter boxes 12 & 14), interpreted as the sensor).
PNG
media_image10.png
759
1022
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
737
999
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
331
326
media_image12.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 incorporate in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor, with a first conductive structure and the second conductive structure abut against each other, and in response to the connector being connected to the sensor, where a first conductive structure and the second conductive structure clamp the sensor, of Biegon to Thuries, Wu, and Kim, according to known methods. To incorporate and to provide the first and second conductive structures that abut against each other when the connector is not being connected to the sensor and clamp the sensor when the connector is connected to the sensor, modifying the RF error detection circuit with the fixture-based clamping to achieve the claimed connector, where it would be obvious to try using conductive structures that abut when disconnected (for fault detection) and clamp when connected (for signal routing), to attain the desired RF error detection circuit, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claims 4, 7, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Wu, in view of Kim, in view of Yamada (JP 2004245709A, Pub. Date Sep. 02, 2004, hereinafter Yamada), and further in view of Fasenfest.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit ([Abstract] & [Claim 1]) according to claim 2,
an amplifier, configured to amplify the induction signal to produce an output signal (Figs. 2 & 3; [Abstract], [0004]-[0005], [0026]-[0029], [0032]-[0042], [0044]-[0047], [0049]-[0053], [Claim 1] & [Claim 14]: amplifier 205 amplifies input signals for output to differential paths, differential signal is interpreted as the induction signal and the “differential signals converted into a single signal” is interpreted as the output signal);
PNG
media_image13.png
736
939
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the sensor comprises:
However, Wu, further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises (Fig. 1; [0012]-[0018] & [0024]: testing apparatus 30 acts as the sensor, where “The radio frequency testing circuit 40 includes a first pad 42 electrically connected to the testing probe 20”)):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a radio frequency circuit wherein the sensor comprises, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. To attain and improve the sensor in the RF error detection circuitry to isolate signals, would be obvious to try, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
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, Yamada, further teaches:
and an analog to digital converter (Fig. 2; [0043] & [0052]: A/D converter 91, buffer 92 comprises a differential amplifier to amplify induced electromotive force signals to a predetermined level), coupled to the amplifier (Fig. 2: [0043], [0052], & [Claim 16]: buffer 92, interpreted as the amplifier) and configured to convert the output signal (Fig. 2; [0043] & [0052]: shaping circuit 93, shaping interpreted as convert, an “analog signal outputted from the buffer 92”) output by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form (Fig. 2; [0043] & [0052]: conversion unit 94, converts the shaped analog signal, interpreted as the determination signal, into digital data).
PNG
media_image14.png
503
878
media_image14.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 incorporate an analog to digital converter, coupled to the amplifier and configured to convert the output signal by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form, of Yamada to Thuries, Wu, and Kim, according to known methods. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious, yielding predictable results, supporting digitization for diagnostic accuracy (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 6 ([Abstract], [0001], & [Claim1]),
an amplifier, configured to amplify the induction signal to produce an output signal (Figs. 2 & 3; [Abstract], [0004]-[0005], [0026]-[0029], [0032]-[0042], [0044]-[0047], [0049]-[0053], [0055], [Claim 1] & [Claim 14]: amplifier 205 amplifies input signals for output to differential paths, differential signal is interpreted as the induction signal and the “differential signals converted into a single signal” is interpreted as the output signal); and
Thuries, is silent in regard to:
wherein the sensor comprises
However, Wu, further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises (Figs. 1 & 2; [0012]-[0018] & [0024]: testing apparatus 30 acts as the sensor, where “The radio frequency testing circuit 40 includes a first pad 42 electrically connected to the testing probe 20”):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a radio frequency circuit wherein the sensor comprises, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. To attain and improve the sensor in the RF error detection circuitry to isolate signals, would be obvious to try, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
an analog to digital converter, coupled to the amplifier and configured to convert the output signal by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form.
However, Yamada, further teaches:
an analog to digital converter (Fig. 2; [0043] & [0052]: A/D converter 91, buffer 92 comprises a differential amplifier to amplify induced electromotive force signals to a predetermined level), coupled to the amplifier (Fig. 2; [0043], [0052] & [Claim 16]: buffer 92, interpreted as the amplifier) and configured to convert the output signal (Fig. 2; [0043] & [0052]: shaping circuit 93, shaping interpreted as convert, an “analog signal outputted from the buffer 92”) by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form (Fig. 2; [0043] & [0052]: conversion unit 94, converts the shaped analog signal, interpreted as the determination signal, into digital data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an analog to digital converter, coupled to the amplifier and configured to convert the output signal by the amplifier into the determination signal in digital form, of Yamada to Thuries, Wu, and Kim, according to known methods. A POSITA would be motivated to employ/use known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious, yielding predictable results, supporting digitization for diagnostic accuracy (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001], [0032]-[0035], [0052]-[0053] & [Claim1]),
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
wherein the element under test is a multiplexer, the radio frequency circuit further comprises at least one additional transmission line and at least one additional sensing line disposed on the base plate, 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, the at least one additional transmission line is electrically connected to an 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, and the controller is further configured to determine a state of the multiplexer according to the induction signal.
However, Yamada, further teaches:
wherein the element under test is a multiplexer (Fig. 2; [0043]–[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: multiplexer 91/950), the radio frequency circuit further comprises at least one additional transmission line (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring with coils 32, capacitors 33, signal change detection parts 30, and measuring points located on PCB 4, connected to multiplexer 91) and at least one additional sensing line (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring, coils 32, capacitors 33, signal change detection parts 30) disposed on the base plate (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: signal change detection units 30 each including the coils 32 and capacitors 33), the at least one additional sensing line is parallel to the transmission line (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring) and one of the at least one additional transmission line within the sensing area (Figs. 1 & 10; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring and signal change detection part 30 for detecting inducted electromotive force) and separated by a second length (Fig. 9a; [0084]–[0086] & [0089]-[0090]: spiral coil 70 having a magnetic path length LEN & wiring patten 80a mainly microstrip lines), the at least one additional transmission line is electrically connected to an output port of the multiplexer (Figs. 1 & 2; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045], [0051]-[0053] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring, coils 32, capacitors 33, having signals selected by the multiplexer 91 to connect to the rest of the detection circuit, control unit 99), the sensing line (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[032], [0037]-[0045] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring and signal change detection part 30, coils 32, and capacitors 33) and the at least one additional transmission line (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045], [0084]-[0090], [0092]-[0095], [0099] & [0108]-[0109]: wiring with signal detection part 30, coils 32, and capacitors 33) are adapted for inducing the RF signal on the transmission line (Fig. 2; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045], [0084]-[0090], [0092]-[0095], [0099] & [0108]-[0109]: coil 32 & buffer 92) and the at least one additional sensing line (Fig. 1; [Solution], [0015]-[0026], [0029]-[0032], [0037]-[0045], [0084]-[0090], [0092]-[0095], [0099] & [0108]-[0109]: spiral coil 70 over wiring pattern 80 on PCB 10) to generate the induction signal (Fig. 2; [Solution], [0022] & [0043]-[0045], [0084]-[0090], [0092]-[0095] & [0099]: signal outputted from the buffer 92), and the controller is further configured to determine a state of the multiplexer according to the induction signal (Figs. 2 & 10; [Solution], [0019]–[0020], [0022], [0029]-[0032], [0033], [0037]-[0045], [0048], [0084]-[0090], [0092]-[0095] & [0099]: multiplexer 91, signal outputted from buffer 32, control unit 99).
PNG
media_image15.png
878
560
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
225
538
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
533
763
media_image17.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 have incorporated a multiplexer, with the radio frequency circuit further comprising at least one additional transmission line and at least one additional sensing line disposed at the base plate, 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, with the at least one additional transmission line electrically connected to an output port of the multiplexer, with the sensing line and the at least one additional transmission line adapted for inducing the RF signal on the transmission line and the at least one additional sensing line generating the induction signal, and the controller further configured to determine a state of the multiplexer according to the induction signal. Of Yamada to Thuries, Wu, and Kim, according to known methods. By integrating the control logic of Thuries with the modular, inductive sensing structure of Kim, and applying it to the multipoint testing configuration taught by Yamada. A POSITA would find it obvious to use Kim’s inductive sensor as one or more measurement points in Yamada’s system, and then use the controller logic of Thuries to determine the state of the multiplexer itself or the element connected through it, with the parallel arrangement and separation distance of lines on the PCB for induction as taught by Yamada. To attain and improve testing multiplexers via induced signals with length-based separation for efficient coupling, has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 10 ([Abstract], [0001], [0032]-[0035], [0052]-[0053] & [Claim1]), wherein a first output port (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0004]-[0006], [0031]-[0042] & [0044]-[0047]: Transmission lines 206 & 207 on PCB 204 connected to element under test, output ports via connections 211) of the multiplexer transmits the RF signal (Fig. 5; [0031]-[0041]: teaches a multiplexer function via its disabling circuit (switches (230) and (232) interpreted as a multiplexer, selects which of the two transmission lines (206,207) is an active transmission line) through the transmission line (Figs. 2 & 4; [0004]-[0006], [0031]-[0042] & [0044]-[0047]: Transmission lines 206 & 207 on PCB 204 connected to element under test output ports via connections 211) and
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), 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), 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:
a first line in the at least one additional transmission line,
However, Wu, further teaches:
a first line in the at least one additional transmission line (Fig. 2; [0005], [0007] & [0012]-[0022]: a conventional RF connector socket “functions the same as a switch”, switch is interpreted as a multiplexer, and can “cut off input from the RF signal to the radio frequency element” (the antenna) so that “all the RF signals are transmitted to the testing apparatus”, and also states that the second pad 44 with the metal plate 46 “functions the same as a radio frequency connector” and can “cut off RF signals input to the antenna 50 to prevent transmission thereof”, directing the signal to the test probe, this functionality of selecting one of two potential output paths for a single input signal, is the essential function of a multiplexer or switch, reinforcing the routing of a signal to different transmission lines for testing purposes),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first line in the at least one additional transmission line, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. To improve the control logic of comparing sensed power via a multiplexer or switch to route signals to different lines, similar devices in the same way would be obvious to try, yielding predictable results, for an efficient RF error detection circuit (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
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;
However, Yamada, further teaches:
wherein the first threshold value (Fig. 2; [0032], [0037]-[0045], [0052] & [0084]-[0090]: failure diagnostic unit 90, digitally performs Fourier transform (frequency conversion) on the “acquired operation signal waveform (inducted electromotive force waveform)” and a “frequency analysis unit 95 that analyzes a frequency component included in the signal component; and a storage unit 96 such as a semiconductor memory that stores, as an expected value….includes a comparison determination unit 98 that determines the presence or absence of a fault by comparing the expected value stored in the storage unit 96 with the result of the frequency analysis performed…”) corresponding to the sensing line (Figs. 1 & 9a; [0037]-[0045] & [0084]-[0090]: wire patterns 80a) and the at least one additional sensing line (Figs. 1 & 2; [0037]-[0045]: wiring) have a weight relationship (Fig.9a; [0029]-[0032] & [0084]-[0090]: spiral coil 70) based on a ratio of distances (Fig. 9a; [0029]-[0032], [0080] & [0084]-[0090]: spiral coil 70) from the first line to the sensing line (Figs. 1 & 9a; [0037]-[0045] & [0084]-[0090]: wire patterns 80a) and the at least one additional sensing line (Figs. 1 & 2; [0037]-[0045]: wiring);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first threshold value corresponding to the sensing line and the at least one additional sensing line, having 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, of Yamada to Thuries, Wu, and Kim, according to known methods. To improve the pass/fail test of an RF error detection circuit with multiple sensing lines at different distances, would be obvious to try to adjust the “weight relationship” of the threshold for each line based on its distance to ensure test is accurate, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Wu, in view of Kim, in view of Biegon, in view of Yamada, and further in view of Fasenfest.
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
However, Wu, further teaches:
wherein the first conductive structure comprises (Fig. 2; [0012]-[0018]: signal pad 420 interpreted as the first conductive structure):
a first conductor reed (Fig. 2; [0012]-[0018]: first pad 42 interpreted as a first conductor reed);
a first conductor plate (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0012]-[0018] & [0024]: 42 & 44, testing probe 20 connects to first pad 42 on PCB 41 (interpreted as a first conductor plate with metal plate 46)), having a first end and a second end connected to the sensing line (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [0012]-[0018], [0024] & [Claim 2]: first end 422 & second end 442, testing probe 20 connects to first pad 42 on PCB 41, which connects to transmission line 48, interpreted as the sensing line); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first conductive structure comprising a first conductor reed, a first conductor plate, having a first end and a second end connected to the sensing line, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve the signal isolation of the RF error detection circuitry, where the combination of the references would be obvious to try to arrive at the claimed invention, and yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, and Kim, are silent in regard to:
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, Biegon, further teaches:
wherein in response to the connector (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36]: connectors 11 & 15) not being connected to the sensor (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-47] & [Col. 6, ll. 6-29]: toroids 68, 70, 72, & 74 abut when the fixture is closed with a “connector not being connected to the sensor”, and sense circuit 16 (sensor) connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48 & 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit), the first conductor reed (Fig. 1; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll.35-48] & [Col. 6, ll. 53-65]: current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 48 (and first conductive reed), coupled to adapter box 12, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, and first conductive structure 68 & 70) and the second conductive structure (Figs.1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 14-36], [Col. 5, ll. 35-48], [Col. 6, ll. 6-29 & 45-68] & [Col. 7, ll. 58-68]: current sensor 16 connected to sensing line, interpreted as coaxial cable 50, where the sensor conducts leakage signals to the sensing circuit, and second conductive structure 72 & 74) abut against each other (Figs.1 & 2; [Col. 6, ll.6-29 & 45-68] & [Col. 7, ll. 1-2]: toroids 68, 70, 72, & 74 abut when the fixture is closed with a “connector not being connected to the sensor”, where the “toroids mounted in the upper channel 64 are arranged into two groups 68 and 70…while the lower channel 66 are arranged into similar matching groups 72 and 74”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate in response to the connector not being connected to the sensor, the first conductive reed and the second conductive structure abut against each other, of Biegon to Thuries, Wu, and Kim, according to known methods. To incorporate and to provide the first conductive reed and second conductive structure that abut against each other when the connector is not being connected to the sensor, modifying the RF error detection circuit with the fixture-based clamping to achieve and improve the claimed connector. A POSITA would find it obvious to try using a first conductive reed and a second conductive structure that abuts when disconnected (for fault detection) to attain the desired RF error detection circuit, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, Kim, and Biegon, are silent in regard to:
a capacitor, electrically connected to the first end of the first conductor plate and the first conductor reed respectively;
However, Yamada, further teaches:
a capacitor (Fig. 1; [0019], [0024] & [0031]: capacitor 33), electrically connected to the first end of the first conductor plate (Fig. 1; [0019], [0023]-[0024] & [0031]: support substrate 4) and the first conductor reed respectively (Fig. 1; [0024]-[0025] & [0031]: coils forming the signal change detection unit 30 are referred to as a coil 32);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first conductive structure comprising a first conductor reed, a first conductor plate, having a first end and a second end connected to the sensing line, of Yamada to Thuries, Wu, Kim, and Biegon, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve the signal isolation of the RF error detection circuitry enhancing it with capacitor-based sensing, would be obvious to try, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuries, in view of Wu, in view of Kim, in view of Yamada, in view of Yang (US 2010/0327990A1, Pub. Date Dec. 30, 2010, hereinafter Yang), and further in view of Fasenfest.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Thuries, teaches:
The radio frequency circuit according to claim 11 ([Abstract], [0001], [0004], [0032]-[0035], [0045]-[0046], [0052]-[0053] & [Claim1]),
having a power intensity less than a second threshold value (Fig. 15; [0031]-[0042], [0044]-[0047] & [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 the power intensity greater than or equal to a second threshold value (Fig. 15; [0031]-[0042], [0044]-[0047] & [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 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,
However, Wu, further teaches:
wherein the first line in the at least one additional transmission line (Fig. 2; [0005], [0007] & [0012]-[0022]: a conventional RF connector socket “functions the same as a switch”, switch is interpreted as a multiplexer, and can “cut off input from the RF signal to the radio frequency element” (the antenna) so that “all the RF signals are transmitted to the testing apparatus”, and also states that the second pad 44 with the metal plate 46 “functions the same as a radio frequency connector” and can “cut off RF signals input to the antenna 50 to prevent transmission thereof”, directing the signal to the test probe, this functionality of selecting one of two potential output paths for a single input signal, is the essential function of a multiplexer or switch, reinforcing the routing of a signal to different transmission lines for testing purposes) is parallel to the transmission line (Fig. 2; [0005] & [0012]-[0021]: 48, RF testing circuit with ground portions parallel to the transmission line, separated by a distance (1/4 wavelength) to induce signals) connected to a second output port of the multiplexer within the sensing area (Fig. 2; [0005], [0007] & [0012]-[0022]: a conventional RF connector socket “functions the same as a switch”, switch is interpreted as a multiplexer, and can “cut off input from the RF signal to the radio frequency element” (the antenna) so that “all the RF signals are transmitted to the testing apparatus”, and also states that the second pad 44 with the metal plate 46 “functions the same as a radio frequency connector” and can “cut off RF signals input to the antenna 50 to prevent transmission thereof”, directing the signal to the test probe, this functionality of selecting one of two potential output paths for a single input signal, is the essential function of a multiplexer or switch, reinforcing the routing of a signal to different transmission lines for testing purposes, first pad 42 and second pad 44 is interpreted as sensing areas) and a second line in the at least one additional transmission line and separated by a third length (Fig. 2; [0005],[0007] & [0012]-[0022]: a conventional RF connector socket “functions the same as a switch”, switch is interpreted as a multiplexer, and can “cut off input from the RF signal to the radio frequency element” (the antenna) so that “all the RF signals are transmitted to the testing apparatus”, and also states that the second pad 44 with the metal plate 46 “functions the same as a radio frequency connector” and can “cut off RF signals input to the antenna 50 to prevent transmission thereof”, directing the signal to the test probe, this functionality of selecting one of two potential output paths for a single input signal, is the essential function of a multiplexer or switch, reinforcing the routing of a signal to different transmission lines for testing purposes),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 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, of Wu to Thuries, according to known methods. To improve the control logic of comparing sensed power via a multiplexer or switch to route signals to different lines. A POSITA would find it obvious to try and combine similar devices in the same way, yielding predictable results, for an efficient RF error detection circuit (KSR).
Thuries, Wu, Kim, and Yamada, are silent in regard to:
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
However, Yang, further teaches:
the controller is further configured to (Fig. 4; [0034]: controller 480):
determine that no leakage (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0036]: leakage signal detector 470, detects whether or not a leakage is present) occurs between the first line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0036]: first transmission leakage signal 10) and the second line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0035]: second transmission leakage signal 20) that generates the induction signal (Fig. 4; [Abstract & [0034]-[0037]: control signal interpreted as the induction signal) and determine that the leakage (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0036]: leakage signal detector 470, detects whether or not a leakage is present) occurs between the first line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0036]) and the second line (Fig. 4; [0034]-[0035]) that generates the induction signal (Fig. 4; [Abstract & [0034]-[0037]: control signal interpreted as the induction signal)
PNG
media_image18.png
949
1309
media_image18.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 incorporate the controller configured to determine whether or not leakage occurs between the first line and the second line that generates the induction signal, of Yang to Thuries, Wu, Kim, and Yamada, according to known methods. To improve the detections of leakage in the RF error detection circuit, using the pass/fail logic of Thuries, where for a leakage test, a low signal is good, “no leakage” and a high signal is bad “leakage”. 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 April 4, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/8/2026
Prosecution Insights