DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an application filed on May 16,2024, and to the preliminary amendment to the specification filed on August 27,2024, which is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-20 (as originally presented) are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 20, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11-13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeine et al. (US Patent No. 10,566,845).
Regarding claim 1, Zeine et al. discloses a wireless communication device (Fig. 1, any one of #s103a-103n, See, Col. 3, lines 37-47 “clients” or “wireless power receivers,” shown in more detail in Fig. 4), the wireless communication device comprising
at least one processor (Fig. 4, #410) configured to: receive an energizing signal (the “wireless power,” See, Col. 15, line 25) from an energizer (Fig. 1, any one of #s101a-101n, See, Col. 3, lines 37-47, “wireless power transmission system corresponds to an energizer, See, Fig. 8A, #815, Col. 15, lines 24-25);
harvest energy from the energizing signal (Fig. 4, Col. 9, lines 5-8);
synchronize, based on one of the energizing signal (Fig. 8A, #s 817, 819 and 821; Col. 15, lines 26-41) or a beacon signal (Fig. 7, #717; Col. 14, lines 1-15 and 41-47), timing for a timing schedule associated with the wireless communication device (See Col. 11, line 61-Col. 12, line 14); and
cause a signal to be transmitted according to the timing schedule associated with the wireless communication device (Fig. 2 shows a beacon signal being sent from the wireless power receiver to the wireless power transmission system, See, also, Col. 5, lines 54-61 and Col. 6, lines 3-7 and lines 60-63).
Regarding claim 2, Zeine et al. discloses that the wireless communication device is a tag device (Fig. 4, #425; See, Col. 5, lines 6-26, Col. 7, lines 39-44, Col. 9, lines 28-33 (the battery 420 can be omitted); Col. 10, lines 34-37; and Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 3, Zeine et al. discloses that the at least one processor is configured to receive the beacon signal from an energy wireless communication device (Fig. 7. #715, Col. 5, lines 54-61; and Col. 14, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 7, Zeine et al. discloses that, to cause the signal to be transmitted according to the timing schedule, the at least one processor is configured to cause the signal to be transmitted within a time slot of the timing schedule (See, Col. 5, lines 54-61 and Col. 6, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 8, Zeine et al. discloses that a time of the time slot is based on at least one of an identification (ID) or a characteristic of the wireless communication device (See, Col. 8, lines 16-33 and Col. 9, lines 57-62).
Regarding claim 11, Zeine et al. discloses a method of wireless communication (Figs. 2, 7 and 8A) at a wireless communication device (Fig. 1, any one of #103a-103n, See Col. 3, lines 37-47 “clients” or “wireless power receivers,” shown in more detail in Fig. 4), the method comprising
receiving, by the wireless communication device, an energizing signal from an energizer (Fig. 8A, #815, Col. 15, lines 24-25);
harvesting, by the wireless communication device, energy from the energizing signal (Col. 9, lines 5-8);
synchronizing, by the wireless communication device, based on one of the energizing signal (Fig. 8A, #s 817, 819 and 821; Col. 15, lines 26-41) or a beacon signal (Fig. 7, #717; Col. 14, lines 1-15 and 41-47), timing for a timing schedule associated with the wireless communication device (See, also Col. 11, line 61-Col. 12, line 14); and
transmitting, by the wireless communication device, a signal according to the timing schedule associated with the wireless communication device (Fig. 2 shows a beacon signal being sent from the wireless power receiver to the wireless power transmission system, See, also, Col. 5, lines 54-61 and Col. 6, lines 3-7 and lines 60-63).
Regarding claim 12, Zeine et al. discloses that the wireless communication device is a tag device (Fig. 4, #425; See, Col. 5, lines 6-26, Col. 7, lines 39-44, Col. 9, lines 28-33 (the battery 420 can be omitted); Col. 10, lines 34-37; and Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 13, Zeine et al. discloses receiving, by the wireless communication device, the beacon signal from an energy wireless communication device (Fig. 7. #715, Col. 5, lines 54-61; and Col. 14, lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 17, Zeine et al. discloses that transmitting the signal according to the timing schedule comprises transmitting the signal within a time slot of the timing schedule (See, Col. 5, lines 54-61 and Col. 6, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 18, Zeine et al. discloses that a time of the time slot is based on at least one of an identification (ID) or a characteristic of the wireless communication device (See, Col. 8, lines 16-33 and Col. 9, lines 57-62).
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 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zeine et al. in view of Kelly (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0041874).
Regarding claim 4, Zeine et al. teaches a wireless communication device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above, but, while teaching that (1) the energizing signal comprises one or more energy bursts (See, Col 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 3; and Col. 4, Lines 30-37), and (2) the wireless power receiver clients may employ a single dual-purpose antenna to receive the energy signal and to transmit data through such single dual-purpose antenna (See. Col. 5, lines 48-51 and Col. 9, lines 33-35; See. also Col. 13, lines 11-26), fails to explicitly teach that the at least one processor is configured to synchronize the timing for the timing schedule based on a time of a boundary of an energy burst of the one or more energy bursts.
Kelly teaches a motor vehicle sensor system, in which the hub (or an ECU) (Fig. 1A, #110) and a battery-less sensor module (Fig. 1A, #150 and ¶s[0005] and [0006]) that communicate with each other wirelessly through a single dual mode antenna where the hub transmits the RF power to, and exchanges data with, the sensor module via the single antenna (See, e.g., ¶[[0026]).
Kelly further teaches that the energizing signal comprises one or more energy bursts (See, Fig. 1B, ¶[[0034]); and that the at least one processor is configured to synchronize the timing for the timing schedule based on a time of a boundary of an energy burst of the one or more energy bursts (See, ¶s [0006], [[0035] and [0036]).
Kelly teaches that the use of the single antenna provides the benefit of reduced cost and weight (See, ¶[002]) and that, when using a single antenna, the energy signal bursts and the data are to be interleaved, e.g., in time (See, ¶s [0006], [[0034] and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kelly to implement the synchronization using the energy signal boundaries in a single antenna configuration as also contemplated by Ziene et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of the reduction in costs and complexity (See, Kelly at ¶[0002] and Zeine et al. at Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 5, Kelly further teaches that the boundary is one of a start boundary or a stop boundary of the energy burst (See, ¶[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kelly to implement the synchronization using the energy signal boundaries in a single antenna configuration as also contemplated by Ziene et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of the reduction in costs and complexity (See, Kelly at ¶[0002] and Zeine et al. at Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 9, Kelly teaches that, to harvest the energy from the energizing signal, the at least one processor is configured to harvest energy from one or more energy bursts of the energizing signal (See ¶s[0005] and [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kelly to implement the synchronization using the energy signal boundaries in a single antenna configuration as also contemplated by Ziene et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of the reduction in costs and complexity (See, Kelly at ¶[0002] and Zeine et al. at Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 14, Zeine et al. teaches a method of wireless communication all limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above, but, while teaching that (1) the energizing signal comprises one or more energy bursts (See, Col 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 3; and Col. 4, Lines 30-37), and (2) the wireless power receiver clients may employ a single dual-purpose antenna to receive the energy signal and to transmit data through such single dual-purpose antenna (See. Col. 5, lines 48-51 and Col. 9, lines 33-35; See. also Col. 13, lines 11-26), fails to explicitly teach that the at least one processor is configured to synchronize the timing for the timing schedule based on a time of a boundary of an energy burst of the one or more energy bursts.
Kelly teaches a method of wireless communication (Fig. 6) between a motor vehicle a hub (or an ECU) (Fig. 1A, #110) and a battery-less sensor module (Fig. 1A, #150 and ¶s[0005] and [0006]) employing a single dual mode antenna where the hub transmits the RF power to, and exchanges data with, the sensor module via the single antenna (See, e.g., ¶[[0026]).
Kelly further teaches that the energizing signal comprises one or more energy bursts (See, Fig. 1B, ¶[[0034]); and that the at least one processor is configured to synchronize the timing for the timing schedule based on a time of a boundary of an energy burst of the one or more energy bursts (See, ¶s [0006], [[0035] and [0036]).
Kelly teaches that the use of the single antenna provides the benefit of reduced cost and weight (See, ¶[002]) and that, when using a single antenna, the energy signal bursts and the data are to be interleaved, e.g., in time (See, ¶s [0006], [[0034] and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kelly to implement the synchronization using the energy signal boundaries in a single antenna configuration as also contemplated by Ziene et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of the reduction in costs and complexity (See, Kelly at ¶[0002] and Zeine et al. at Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 15, both Zeine et al. and Kelly teach the boundary is one of a start boundary or a stop boundary of the energy burst (See, Zeine et al. at Col. 13, lines 11-26, and Kelly at ¶[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kelly to implement the synchronization using the energy signal boundaries in a single antenna configuration as also contemplated by Ziene et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of the reduction in costs and complexity (See, Kelly at ¶[0002] and Zeine et al. at Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 19, Kelly teaches that, to harvest the energy from the energizing signal, the at least one processor is configured to harvest energy from one or more energy bursts of the energizing signal (See ¶s[0005] and [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kelly to implement the synchronization using the energy signal boundaries in a single antenna configuration as also contemplated by Ziene et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of the reduction in costs and complexity (See, Kelly at ¶[0002] and Zeine et al. at Col. 18, lines 6-13).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zeine et al. in view of Bluetooth V4.21.
Regarding claim 6, Zeine et al. teaches a wireless communication device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above, but, while further teaching that the wireless power receiver client may communicate wirelessly using, e.g., the Bluetooth protocols (See, Col. 4, lines 26-29), fails to explicitly teach that the beacon signal comprises one or more pulses, and that the at least one processor is configured to synchronize the timing for the timing schedule based on a time of a pulse of the one or more pulses of the beacon signal.
Bluetooth V4.2 teaches that the synchronization of the clocks is achieved using the alternating bit pulses in the preamble of the link layer packet (See, e.g., §2.1.1 discussion of the 8 bit preamble).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the beacon pulses as taught by Bluetooth V4.2 in the wireless communication device taught by Zeine et al., as doing so would allow the wireless power receiver clients to communicate using the Bluetooth protocol in compliance with the protocol specification.
Regarding claim 16, Zeine et al. teaches a method of wireless communication all limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above, but, while further teaching that the wireless power receiver client may communicate wirelessly using, e.g., the Bluetooth protocols (See, Col. 4, lines 26-29), fails to explicitly teach that the beacon signal comprises one or more pulses, and that the at least one processor is configured to synchronize the timing for the timing schedule based on a time of a pulse of the one or more pulses of the beacon signal.
Bluetooth V4.2 teaches that the synchronization of the clocks is achieved using the alternating bit pulses in the preamble of the link layer packet (See, e.g., §2.1.1 discussion of the 8 bit preamble).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the beacon pulses as taught by Bluetooth V4.2 in the wireless communication device taught by Zeine et al., as doing so would allow the wireless power receiver clients to communicate using the Bluetooth protocol in compliance with the protocol specification.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zeine et al. in view of He ‘172 (US Patent Publication No.2025/0374172).
Regarding claim 10, Zeine et al. teaches a wireless communication device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that the at least one processor is configured to cause the signal to be transmitted when the wireless communication device is sufficiently energized by the energizing signal to perform transmission.
He ‘172 teaches a wireless communication system, in which one or more access points (AMP AP) transmit RF energy signal to one or more client devices, referred to as ‘zero-power consumption devices (or AMP STAs),’ which devices can harvest energy from the RF energy signal received from the access points (See, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶s[0011], [0071]-[0072], and [0076]). He ‘172 teaches that the at least one processor (Fig. 15, #810, ¶[0351]) is configured to cause the signal to be transmitted when the wireless communication device is sufficiently energized by the energizing signal to perform transmission (See, Fig. 8 or 9, ¶s[0148], [0202] and [0203]). He ‘172 teaches that in order for, and prior to, an AMP STA to the process of associating with a target BSS, it is necessary for the AMP STA to be provided with sufficient power, and that otherwise the AMP STA would be unable to work at all [See, e.g., ¶s [0112] and [0144]), which would be the same for the wireless clients of Zeine et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of He ‘172 to provide sufficient energy to a wireless client prior to the wireless client being able to transmit its beacon signal. Doing so would allow a more efficient and stable wireless communication (See, He ‘172 at ¶[0003] and [0091]).
Regarding claim 20, Zeine et al. teaches a method of wireless communication comprising all limitations recited in claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that the at least one processor is configured to cause the signal to be transmitted when the wireless communication device is sufficiently energized by the energizing signal to perform transmission.
He ‘172 teaches a wireless communication system, in which one or more access points (AMP AP) transmit RF energy signal to one or more client devices, referred to as ‘zero-power consumption devices (or AMP STAs),’ which devices can harvest energy from the RF energy signal received from the access points (See, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶s[0011], [0071]-[0072], and [0076]). He ‘172 teaches that the at least one processor (Fig. 15, #810, ¶[0351]) is configured to cause the signal to be transmitted when the wireless communication device is sufficiently energized by the energizing signal to perform transmission (See, Fig. 8 or 9, ¶s[0148], [0202] and [0203]). He ‘172 teaches that in order for, and prior to, an AMP STA to the process of associating with a target BSS, it is necessary for the AMP STA to be provided with sufficient power, and that otherwise the AMP STA would be unable to work at all [See, e.g., ¶s [0112] and [0144]), which would be the same for the wireless clients of Zeine et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeine et al. to incorporate the teaching of He ‘172 to provide sufficient energy to a wireless client prior to the wireless client being able to transmit its beacon signal. Doing so would allow a more efficient and stable wireless communication (See, He ‘172 at ¶[0003] and [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 February 12, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 Bluetooth Core System Package [Low Energy Controller Volume], page 38, §2.1, et seq., of Vol. 6, Part B of the Specification of the Bluetooth® System, Covered Core Package Version 4.2, published by the Bluetooth SIG on December 2, 2014, which is made of the record.