DETAILED ACTION
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 . The instant application with Application Number 18/302,425 filed on 04/18/2023 is presented for examination. As per the remarks of 06/24/2026, claims 8-13 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statement dated 07/18/2023 is acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elects Species I, claims 1-7 and 14-20. Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1- 4, 7 and 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US2016/0188920) in view of Holinski et al. (US 2020/0078596).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Kelly discloses an apparatus/method comprising: a passive backscatter device (Fig. 1, 24) arranged to transmit a first message using energy from a wireless signal (Fig. 1, 30: energy source-active backscattered); an active backscatter device comprising a first capacitor arranged to charge using energy from a wireless signal (Para. # 0025, 0032: harvest power from external power sources 312, 322, respectively, through at least one internal capacitor (or other source harvesting component);
PNG
media_image1.png
644
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the passive backscatter device based on an amount of energy stored in the first capacitor (Para. # 0033: energy source 312 for charging the capacitor (RFID tag 310 does not harvest energy from 322). On the other hand, RFID tag 320 harvests less from the energy source 322 (as compared with RFID tag 310 and source 312) for charging the capacitor).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
862
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kelly, however, does not expressly disclose a cover arranged to move over the passive backscatter device based on an amount of energy stored.
Holinski, on the other hand, discloses a cover arranged to move over the passive backscatter device (Par.# 146/149: formed by the faraday cage cover 740 which forms a conductive shield above the components while a ground plane 750; can accommodate and not interferer a slot pattern of the electromagnetic transmission element).
KELLY and Holinski are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely energy scavenging tag sensor and garment for positioning midfield transmitter relative to receiver.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the smart energy scavenging backscatter of Kelly by adding a cover that help adjust the position of the transmitter to be transmitted to the receiving part in view of Holinski for effectively transferring battery pack type to include multiple sliding planes useful for locking portion in a recessed region to the battery pack of Kelly in view of Holinski for effectively transmitting power to receiver as needed.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, the combined references of Kelly and Holinski disclose the apparatus/method as described above, Holinski further discloses wherein as the first capacitor charges, the cover moves to cover a smaller portion of the passive backscatter device (Para. # 120: the discrete components include one or more capacitors, such as can be coupled to pad(s) 554. In one or more embodiments, these capacitors can be used for charge balancing during stimulation, such as to help avoid tissue damage).
With respect to claims 3 and 16, the combined references of Kelly and Holinski disclose the apparatus/method as described above, Holinski further discloses wherein the cover distorts the first message differently based on a size of a portion of the passive backscatter device covered by the cover (Para. # 197: information about communication efficiency between the external device 1402 and the implanted device 1404 can be determined at least in part using a backscatter signal).
With respect to claims 4 and 17, the combined references of Kelly and Holinski disclose the apparatus/method as described above, Kelly further discloses, wherein the active backscatter device further comprises a second capacitor arranged to store energy from the first capacitor, and wherein the first capacitor discharges into the second capacitor when the first capacitor charges to a threshold capacity (Para. # 0033: RFID tag 320 harvests less from the energy source 322 (as compared with RFID tag 310 and source 312) for charging the capacitor).
With respect to claims 7 and 20, the combined references of Kelly and Holinski disclose the apparatus/method as described above, Kelly further discloses further comprising a radio connected to the passive backscatter device and the active backscatter device (Para. # 0016,0039: The tags can be powered by harvesting energy from any energy sources (e.g., TV/radio/cell/WiFi towers/access points, etc.). However, the act of accessing the tag drains energy from the tag. If this energy is stored in a capacitor (rather than a battery).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 6 and 19 are dependent on the above objected claims of 5 and 18 above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights