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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. Claims 12 and 13 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.
2. In claim 12, “the stored waveform” lacks antecedent basis”. In claim 13, “a signature waveform” is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Patricio CN 113743138-A see google translation (CN113743138A - Method for distinguishing between active and passive contactless devices and corresponding reader - Google Patents).
6. Consider claim 1. Patricio teaches a test and measurement system for a Near Field Communication (NFC) system (fig 1), the test and measurement system comprising: a radio frequency antenna structured (ANT1) to receive a wireless carrier signal generated by an NFC vicinity coupling device and to receive load-modulated wireless carrier signals (….receiving the device modulated carrier signal by the reader from the device….) generated by one determining the presence or absence of the modulated carrier signal at the antenna of the reader by the reader, the carrier frequency of the modulated carrier signal at the antenna…).
7. Claims 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Husain CN 107659341 A.
8. Consider claim 11. Husain teaches method of determining presence of a response by a Near Field Communication (NFC) listening device following a command sent by an NFC polling device (1 in fig 2), comprising: receiving a series of NFC communication signals (D1-Dp) by an RF antenna (12 in fig 2) attached to an input of a measurement device; detecting that the command was sent by the NFC polling device; isolating one or more valid time periods for the response following the command according to an NFC protocol (reads on… the first command in the SENSB-REQ command of each discovery period and comprises a slot number NoS transmitted by the NFC-B polling mode device…); and searching for the response in the series of NFC communication signals during only the one or more valid time periods (reads on…receiving block 111 is configured during the time slot detection such as SENSB-RES response such as the presence or absence of any response, and analyzing the response to check the response effectively….)
9. Consider claim 15. Husain further teaches finding at least one response in the series of NFC communication signals; and decoding data that is encoded in the response reads on (…the detector receiving block 111 in step 44 checks the received SENSB-RES response is a valid response or whether the response is corresponding to the two NFC-B of the listen mode device conflict invalid response…).
10. Regarding claim 16. Husain also teaches in which at least two responses (of a series of NFC communications) are found, and in which data is decoded for each of the found responses (see detector at block 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
12. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patricio CN 113743138-A in view of Shimura JP-5514707-B2 see Google translation here (JP5514707B2 - Wireless communication apparatus and wireless communication method - Google Patents)
Consider claim 2. Patricio fails to teach his response detector is further structured to isolate one
13. Regarding claim 3. Shimura system teaches the response detector is structured to search only the one or more response time windows for load-modulated wireless carrier signals (i.e passive tags).
14. Regarding claim 4. Shimura teaches the response detector invokes a cross correlation function (reads on T1min ≦ T1 ≦ T1max ) in determining if any load-modulated wireless carrier signals were received during the one or more response time windows.
15. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patricio CN 113743138-A in view of Shimura JP-5514707-B2 further Huang CN 117240675 A see Google translation here (CN117240675A - Demodulation method for NFC signal, NFC device and storage medium - Google Patents)
16. Consider claim 5. The combination of Patricio and Shimura fails to teach in which the cross-correlation function comprises generating a cross-correlation function using a start-of-frame (SOF) signal as one of a pair of cross-correlated signals. However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches such (… performing a correlation operation on the digital signal to obtain a correlation operation result…..the B-type signal comprises a time synchronization area (also called TR1 area), a frame start flag (Start of Frame, SOF) area…). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to add this to the Shimura in order to synchronize the received analog signal received at the antenna.
17. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patricio CN 113743138-A in view of Fuse JP 2019211245 A see Google translation here (JP2019211245A - Near-field measuring device and near-field measuring method - Google Patents).
18. Consider claim 6 and 7. Patricia teaches capturing the wireless carrier signal received from the antenna but fails to teach storing the captured signal as a waveform within the test and measurement system. However, such is well known in the art as taught by Fuse (see abstract and fig 4A where the baseband signal stored is a function of waveform received…the complex baseband signal sequence of the CP-OFDM signal stored in the storage unit 16…). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date to add storage capability to Patricio in order to further review the received signal and make adjustments needed to make the system more efficient.
19. Claims 8 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patricio CN 113743138-A in view of Sadek US-20200182781-A1.
20. Consider claims 8 and 9. Patricio teaches a decoder (demodulator) configured to decode data from any load-modulated wireless carrier signals generated by one received by the antenna, but fails to teach a display screen for showing the decoded data. However, such is well known in the art as taught by Sadek (see fig 19, where in the NFC scanner displays the scanned received waveform). It would have been obvious, before the effective date to add a display to Patricio in order to further review the signal for interference as part of the overall testing requirements.
21. Regarding claim 10. Sadek’s fig 17 shows the received wireless carrier signal comprises displaying the wireless carrier signal in a frequency domain (y axis) and in a time domain (x axis) on the display simultaneously.
22. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Husain CN 107659341 A in view of Fuse JP 2019211245 A further in view of Sadek US-20200182781-A1.
23. Regarding claim 12. Although Fuse discusses using the IQ waveform signals, he fails to teach searching for the response comprises analyzing the stored waveform. However, Sadek teaches such in his measuring system (see fig 19). It would have been obvious, before the effective date to analyze the waveforms in order to test the reliability of the near field tags.
24. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husain CN 107659341 A in view of Sadek US-20200182781-A1.
25. Consider claims 17-18. Husain fails to teach displaying NFC communication signals on a display device. However, Sadek teaches such (see fig 19). It would have been obvious, before the effective date to add a display to Patricio in order to further review the signal for interference as part of the overall testing requirements.
26. Regarding claim 19. Sadek’s fig 17 shows the received wireless carrier signal comprises displaying the wireless carrier signal in a frequency domain (y axis) and in a time domain (x axis) on the display simultaneously.
27. Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husain CN 107659341 A in view of Fuse JP 2019211245 A in view of Sadek US-20200182781-A1 further in view of Huang CN 117240675 A.
28. Regarding claims 13 and 14, and in view of the 112 rejections above, method claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as Huang apples to apparatus claim 5 as the recited elements would perform the claim steps.
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2013116681 Hillan teaches determining that device sensing response message (338a,338b,338n) is included with collisions among several remote NFC devices (330a,330b,330n). The remote NFC device is identified by performing collision resolution on the device sensing response message.
US 20170373726 A1 Nakano teaches a receiver of the disclosure includes: a load modulator that transmits an active load modulation signal generated by active load modulation to a reader writer, in response to a carrier signal transmitted from the reader writer; and a controller that determines whether the active load modulation signal has reached the reader writer, and controls the load modulator to retransmit the active load modulation signal, after changing a phase of the active load modulation signal with respect to the carrier signal, in a case where the controller determines that the active load modulation signal has not reached the reader writer.
US 20140278176 A1 Wisniewski teaches a method of wireless communication, with a circuit that includes a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, can be carried out using a circuit that is configured and arranged to communicate with RFID cards that use load modulation of an RF carrier provided by the RFID reader. A presence of the radio frequency (RF) carrier is detected on an antenna. A local clock signal is generated. A difference between the local clock signal and the RF carrier is detected. In response to the detected difference, the frequency of the local clock signal is modified to reduce the detected difference. Load modulation of the RF carrier is mimicked by modulating the local clock signal to encode data; and driving the antenna with the modulated local clock signal.
Conclusion
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH from 530am to 3pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646