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 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 7-15 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “said first and second antenna connection terminals” which lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the method of claim 7, comprising repeatedly carrying out the method steps of claim 7. This language is unclear as to what is performed and is not further limiting as it refers to itself.
Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected by virtue of their respective dependencies on claim 7.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 13- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian (10,979,102) in view of Austad (2017/0353029) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Balasubramanian discloses an electronic device for processing near-field communications comprising first and second antenna connection terminals (Fig 3, terminals 26, 28), a linear load connected between the first and second connection terminals, wherein a current flowing through has a substantially linear and positive relationship with voltage across the linear load, defining a conductance of the linear load, wherein the conductance is adjustable (pad circuit 30 which includes controlled load circuits 32/34). Balasubramanian a peak detector (36) arranged to detect an amplitude of an incoming near-field communication signal across the antenna terminals (Col. 6;55-Col 7;6) and a control circuit arranged to adjust the conductance based on the amplitude detected by the peak detector, so as to regulate the voltage swing (Col 7;34-64).
Balasubramanian fails to disclose a voltage clamp connected between the first and second antenna terminals having an adjustable clamping voltage . However, Austad, in an analogous art, teaches the use of a clamping circuit (114) which connected between a first and second terminal (NFC circuit 108). Austad teaches that the clamp is adjustable as well (para 27-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a clamping circuit in order to remove negative components of the differential signal.
Regarding claim 6, Balasubramanian discloses that the electronic device is a NFC listener device (Col 6;13-15).
Regarding claim 7, Balasubramanian discloses a method of regulating voltage swing across an antenna of an electronic device receiving near field communication signals (Figure 3) comprising: detecting an amplitude of an incoming near-field communication signal across said antenna and based on the detected amplitude(Col 6;55-Col 7;6), adjusting a conductance of a linear load connected between antenna connection terminals, said conductance providing a substantially linear, positive relationship between a current flowing through the linear load and the voltage across the linear load (pad circuit 30 which includes controlled load circuits 32/34) and regulating the voltage swing across the antenna connection terminals (Col 7;34-64).
Balasubramanian fails to disclose adjusting a voltage clamp connected between the first and second antenna terminals. However, Austad, in an analogous art, teaches the use of a clamping circuit (114) which connected between a first and second terminal (NFC circuit 108). Austad teaches that the clamp is adjustable as well (para 27-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a clamping circuit in order to remove negative components of the differential signal.
Regarding claims 2-3, 8-9, Balasubramanian discloses the adjustment of the shunt voltage proportional to the detected voltage of the NFC circuits (Col 5;60-Col6;15 and Col 7;34-8;23). Balasubramanian does not disclose the use of minimum or maximum values or the control circuit adjusts the clamping voltage between minimum and maximum values. However, Austad teaches the use of first minimum (clamp low) and high (clamp high) values (para 27). Austad also teaches the control circuit adjusts the clamping voltage as well (para 27-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include minimum and maximum values in order to limit the regulation.
Regarding claim 13, Austad further teaches that if the detected amplitude is above the minimum voltage threshold and below the maximum threshold, increasing the clamping voltage (para 34-39) and is rejected for the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 14, both Balasubramanian and Austad disclose repeatedly carrying out the method steps (Balasubramanian Figure 5 and Austad para 27-29) and is rejected for the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claim 7 above.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 4, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian and Austad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Agrawal (2015/0004909).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Balasubramanian discloses the electronic device further comprises a reference generator (38, peak reference voltage) arranged to generate a threshold voltage, but the combination of Balasubramanian and Austad does not disclose the voltage generator using minimum and maximum voltage thresholds However, Agarwal teaches in an analogous art, a NFC circuitry in which a regulator (Fig 2a) includes both minimum and maximum voltage thresholds (Vl and Vh, 203 and 204) and compares the amplitude from the peak detector against both the min and max thresholds (para 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to include thresholds in order to provide greater control in the peak detector circuit.
Regarding claim 11, Balasubramanian discloses adjusting the conductance comprises adjusting the conductance from a first minimum value to first max value, where if the amplitude exceeds the maximum voltage, then increasing the conductance (Col 7;33-65). Balasubramanian fails to disclose the voltage clamp with adjusting the voltage clamp between a second minimum to a second maximum. However, Austad teaches in an analogous art a voltage clamp in which clamping voltage is adjusted from a second minimum to a second maximum (Para 27, clamp low and clamp high clamping voltages). Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasoning given as claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Balasubramanian discloses adjusting the conductance comprises adjusting the conductance from a first minimum value to first max value, where if the amplitude is below the minimum voltage, then adjusting the conductance (Col 7;33-65). Balasubramanian fails to disclose the voltage clamp with adjusting the voltage clamp between a second minimum to a second maximum or if the clamping voltage is below the maximum value, increasing the clamping voltage. However, Austad teaches if a detected amplitude is below a threshold, increasing the clamping voltage (Para 37-39, voltage clamp ramps up the amplitude after being at the minimum voltage at time of switch on) as well as the use of a voltage clamp which has a second minimum and maximum values (para 27). Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasoning as given in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 15, Both Balasubramanian and Austad disclose iterative processing to use signal adjustment based on thresholds. However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, comprising adjusting the conductance in increments of equal size. Agrawal teaches that a peak detector adjusts conductance in equal size (para 23, the use of successive steps in a digital state machine which is part of the peak detector/regulator). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize increments in order to prevent overcompensation in the regulation of signals.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian and Austad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen (2012/0300350).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Balasubramanian and Austad fails to disclose that the voltage clamp comprises a multiplexer and resistor ladder. However, Nguyen teaches that a voltage clamp circuit can comprise a multiplexer and resistor ladder (Figures 4-5, y-configuration is equivalent to multiplexing and the resistor ladder for each stage) responding to control signals (350/360). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include mux and resistor ladders in order to provide signal processing to the voltage clamp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manian (9762292) disclose NFC circuitry including a shunt circuit.
Sheikholeslami (20160087430) disclose overvoltage protection for a NFC device.
Lefley (9026046) discloses load modulation for a NFC device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641