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 .
1. Claims 15-24 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 15-18 and 20-23 are amended as filed on 02/11/2026.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2010/0321035 A1), in view of Daubert et al. (Patent No. US 11,366141 B1), hereinafter Daubert, and in further view of Ryu et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0091777 A1), hereinafter Ryu.
2. With respect to claims 15 and 20, Masuda taught an integrated circuit (0002) comprising: a target circuit (0015); and a magnetic antenna array embedded within the target circuit (0115, where the antenna is on-chip in accordance with 0120), the magnetic antenna array comprising one or more antenna loops formed by a plurality of connections between a plurality of intersecting horizontal and vertical wires (0099-0100, where the antenna loop is a mesh shield in accordance with 0101), the magnetic antenna array configured to reduce magnetic field leakage (0105, where the noise is suppressed) by: detecting a magnetic field leakage of a target circuit by configuring the magnetic antenna array to operate in a detection mode (0083 & 0005); a first set of one or more transmission gates of the magnetic antenna array that corresponds to a first antenna loop of a plurality of antenna loops, the first antenna loop comprises a first configurable shape that corresponds to the first configurable location (0101 & 0005, where, at least, the initial configuration is given and the transmission gates connect the circuit in accordance with 0104, under broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, while Masuda did teach blocking the field leakage noise (0098), Masuda did not explicitly state inversely amplifying the one or more antenna loops based on the magnetic field leakage. On the other hand, Daubert did teach inversely amplifying the one or more antenna loops based on the magnetic field leakage (10:58 to 11:13). Both of the systems of Masuda and Daubert are directed towards managing field leakage in integrated circuits and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Masuda to utilize directly applying an inverse current designed to cancel field leakage, as taught by Daubert, in order to more efficiently protect a circuit system.
However, Masuda did not explicitly state generating an electrical current by inversely amplifying a set of one or more antenna loops for the plurality of antenna loops based on the magnetic field leakage, wherein the set of one or more antenna loops comprises a second antenna loop with a second configurable shape at a second configurable location that is in accordance with the first configurable shape and the first configurable location; and canceling the magnetic field leakage by configuring a second set of one or more transmission gates of the magnetic antenna array, including the first set of one or more transmission gates to inject the electrical currents into the second antenna loop. On the other hand, Ryu did teach generating an electrical current by inversely amplifying a set of one or more antenna loops for the plurality of antenna loops based on the magnetic field leakage, wherein the set of one or more antenna loops comprises a second antenna loop with a second configurable shape at a second configurable location that is in accordance with the first configurable shape and the first configurable location (0045 & 0049, where the changeable circuit pattern can be seen in, at least, 0046 and the transmission gates are shown by the switches of 0060); and canceling the magnetic field leakage by configuring a second set of one or more transmission gates of the magnetic antenna array, including the first set of one or more transmission gates to inject the electrical currents into the second antenna loop (0049 & 0051). Both of the systems of Masuda and Daubert are directed towards managing field leakage in integrated circuits and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention to modify the teachings of Masuda to utilize reconfiguring a circuit designed to cancel field leakage, as taught by Daubert, in order to more efficiently protect a circuit system.
3. As for claims 16 and 21, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 15 and 20 (respectively). In addition, Daubert taught wherein the magnetic antenna array is configured to modify the magnetic field leakage by operating in an interference mode that causes the magnetic antenna array to generate a magnetic field interference that is coincident with the magnetic field leakage (10:58 to 11:13).
4. As for claims 17 and 22, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 15 and 20 (respectively). In addition, Daubert taught wherein the magnetic antenna array is configured to mask the magnetic field leakage by operating in an interference mode that causes the magnetic antenna array to generate a noisy magnetic field interference that is coincident with the magnetic field leakage (10:58 to 11:13).
5. As for claims 18 and 23, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 15 and 20 (respectively). In addition, Daubert taught wherein the magnetic antenna array is configured to defend the target circuit against one or more magnetic field fault injections by: operating in a detection mode that causes the magnetic antenna array to detect a magnetic field fault injection on the target circuit; and operating in a shielding mode that causes the magnetic antenna array to enable a third set of one or more transmission gates, including the first set of one or more transmission gates, that are adjacent to a location of the magnetic field fault injection to shield the magnetic field fault injection (10:58 to 11:13, where the low frequency response of 3:4-9 are adjusted by gates in accordance with 15:37-58. It is to be noted, that the fault injection represents the system for managing the field leakage correction in accordance with the applicant’s specification 0059).
6. As for claims 19 and 24, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 18 and 23 (respectively). In addition, Masuda taught wherein the location of the magnetic field fault injection is associated with one or more antenna loop units comprising highest induced voltages (16:65 to 17:4, where the highest voltage is taught as any of the voltages, including the highest voltage, could be the effected leakage circuit voltage).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443