FINAL REJECTION
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding the amendment filed 11/12/2025:
The amendment to claims 1 and 2 is acknowledged and accepted.
The cancelation of claims 3-10 is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of new claims 11-14 is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to the specification and the abstract are acknowledged and accepted.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains an acronym (i.e. DC), however does not provide the full name. If the applicant is to claim the acronym, the full name should be referenced at least once within the claims in parentheses (e.g. direct current (DC).
Claim 1 has multiple components and multiple “comprising” phrases. Since the claim fails to provide any indentation, it is not certain which elements are with respect to which components. For example, the RFID tag comprising: two RF terminals, a first RF terminal and a second RF terminal; and antenna...; a RFID IC connected to the antenna, the RFID IC comprising... and multiple other components listed. Without an “and”, it is not certain which other components are drawn to the RFID tag versus the RFID IC, e.g. AFE, resonant capacitor, rectifier, uplink modulator, a RF signal strength detector, a sensing circuit, a comparator, a digital controller, RF control unit etc. For example, there is a digital controller, however it is not certain if it is part of the RFID tag, or part of the RFID IC (it is assumed to not be part of the RF signal strength detector since there is an “and” between sensing circuit and comparator). For ease of understanding which elements are drawn to which components, it is requested that the corresponding “comprising” elements be indented accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag with increased communication range comprising: two Radio Frequency (RF) terminals, a first RF terminal and a second RF terminal”. It is unclear how many RF terminals there are since there are two RF terminal but also a first RF terminal and a second RF terminal. It is not clear if the applicant is attempting to claim a total of four RF terminals (since there are two RF terminals, and a first and a second terminal), or if the applicant intends there to be two RF terminals. If the applicant intends there to be only two RF terminals, then it is suggested that “two Radio Frequency (RF) terminals” be removed for clarity. Additionally, should the applicant remove the “two Radio Frequency (RF) terminals”, then the acronym for a first RF terminal will be needed, i.e. “a first Radio Frequency (RF) terminal”. For examination purposes, the claim language will be interpreted as there being only two RF terminals, i.e. a first Radio Frequency (RF) terminal and a second RF terminal.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection (where applicable) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, as best understood, prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, either singly or in combination, an RFID tag comprising the RFID IC configured to comprising: a front-end circuit (AFE) configured to convert the received RF signal to a DC signal to power the RFID IC, and to modulate the received RF signal for communication between the RFID reader and the RFID tag, the AFE comprising: a resonant capacitor coupled to the antenna and configured to tune the antenna to receive the RF signal, a rectifier coupled to the first RF terminal and the second RF terminal, and configured to convert the received RF signal to the DC signal, and an uplink modulator coupled to the first RF terminal and the second RF terminal, and configured to modulate the received RF signal with a modulation signal; a RF signal strength detector coupled to the rectifier and configured to detect strength of the RF signal, the RF signal strength detector comprising: a sensing circuit configured to receive the DC signal from the rectifier and generate an output signal indicative of the strength of the RF signal, and a comparator configured to receive the output signal from the sensing circuit and compare magnitude level of the output signal with a reference level to generate a comparator output signal to the RF control unit; a digital controller, wherein the digital controller comprises: a main control unit configured to provide a modulation data, and a RF control unit configured to receive the modulation data from the main control unit and provide the modulation signal to the uplink modulator, wherein the digital controller configured to: provide a control signal to control operation of the sensing circuit, determine a modulation pattern of the modulation signal by the RF control unit in response to the comparator output signal: when the comparator output signal is high, the modulation pattern of the modulation signal has a duty cycle of 50%, and when the comparator output signal is low, the modulation pattern of the modulation signal has a duty cycle of larger than 50%, in addition to the other limitations of the claim.
Claims not specifically addressed would be allowable due to their dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 11-14 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment to claim 1 (A system to increase communication range of passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags with increased communication range comprising: two Radio Frequency (RF) terminals, a first RF terminal and a second RF terminal).
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.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:00 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, Michael Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876