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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1012) in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (WO 2013042604).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses an antenna extender (i.e. antenna booster) (See fig. 1A), comprising: a body having a supporting structure 22 configured to receive a smart card 10 (See fig. 1B); a first antenna 31R electrically connected to a second antenna 31C, the first antenna 31R configured to inductively couple with a near field communication (NFC) antenna on a host device (i.e. a communication partner), the second antenna 31C configured to inductively couple with an NFC antenna 12 on the smart card 10 (See figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B, Abstract and provided English translation).
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. Kato further discloses the first antenna 31R and the second antenna 31C are different sizes (See figs. 1B, 4A-4C).
Regarding claim 5, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. Kato further discloses the body is integrated with a device case 41 (See figs. 1A-1B, 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. Kato further discloses the body is integrated with a receptacle 21 configured to align the NFC antenna 12 on the smart card with the second antenna 31C (See figs. 1B, 9A).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2013042604) in view of Suzuki (8,643,473).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Ko does not explicitly mention that the first antenna and the second antenna are resonantly tuned using a passive component. Since Suzuki suggests a similar system (See figs 3, 5), wherein the first antenna 31 and the second antenna 32 are resonantly tuned using a passive component (i.e. capacitor) (See figs, 3, 5 and col. 15 lines 26-42); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify, as suggested by Suzuki, the Kato’s system with using a passive component such as capacitor to resonantly tune the antennas, for the advantage of improving coupling between devices.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2013042604) in view of Thompson (11,710,989).
Regarding claims 7-9, Kato discloses as cited in claims 1 and 6. However, Kato does not explicitly mention that a magnet or a magnetic material proximate to the first antenna, wherein the host device comprises a magnet or magnetic material configured to align with the magnet or magnetic material associated with the first antenna and wherein the receptacle is configured to be releasably attached to the host device. Since Thompson suggests magnetic positioning for alignment of antenna coils coupling between two devices, wherein an electronic device comprises a magnet or a magnetic material proximate to its antenna coil configured to align with the magnet or magnetic material associated with a counterpart device’s antenna coil (See figs. 1, 14A, 15 and col. 26 lines 21-42); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the Thompson’s teaching in modifying the Kato’s system with a magnet or a magnetic material proximate to the first antenna of the antenna extender as well as the NFC antenna of the host device (by doing so, the antenna extender with its receptacle is releasably attached to the host device), for the advantage of properly aligning the antennas for proper coupling.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2013042604) in view of Suzuki (8,643,473) & Mackin (2021/0034834).
Regarding claim 11, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Kato does not explicitly mention that the antenna extender is configured to provide NFC signal energy from the host device to the smart card, and one or more of the host device and the smart card comprise an NFC signal strength indicator. Since Suzuki suggests a similar system, wherein the antenna extender (i.e. antenna booster) is configured to provide NFC signal energy from the host device (i.e. communication partner or reader) to the smart card (See fig. 5 and col. 7 lines 24-30, col. 17 line 55 to col. 18 line 5), and wherein the smart card comprise an NFC signal strength indicator is known in the art as suggested by Mackin (See figs. 10-12 and par [0195]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify, as suggested by Suzuki & Mackin, the Kato’s system, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various types of passive smart card as well as guiding user (by signal strength indicator) to position the smart card properly for enhanced coupling (enhanced communication quality).
Claim 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2013042604).
Regrading claim 10, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. Kato further discloses the supporting structure is located in a housing having a recess configured to receive the smart card (See fig. 1A). However, Kato does not explicitly mention that the housing having a recess configured to receive the host device. Since housing having a recess to receive an attached counterpart device is known in the art (Official Notice taken by the examiner); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the antenna extender with a recess to receive the host device, for the advantage of providing secure alignment between two attached devices.
Regarding claim 12, Kato discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Kato does not explicitly mention that the supporting structure is flexible and the first antenna and the second antenna are printed conductive ink. Since Official Notice taken by the examiner that flexible PCB and antenna fabricated by printed conductive ink are commonly known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize antenna fabricated by printed conductive ink and/or flexible PCB for the system disclosed by Kato, for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in constructing circuitry in order to accommodate the design intention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights