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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US Pat Pub# 2019/0148970) in view of Govindaraj et al. (US Pat Pub# 2017/0033591) and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US Pat Pub# 2010/0176202).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Kobayashi teaches a method of controlling a first NFC device (Fig. 5, NFC devices) comprising an NFC controller coupled to an antenna (Fig. 5, controllers and antennas etc.), wherein the method comprises interrupting, by the NFC controller, a mode of charge of a second remote NFC device by the antenna (Sections 0148 and 0162, interrupting the charge of a second NFC device etc.). Kobayashi fails to teach detecting an impedance change and starting a communication.
Govindaraj teaches as a result of a detection, by the controller, of an impedance change of the antenna while the antenna is charging the second remote device (Sections 0008, 0041, 0063, and 0100-0102, detecting an impedance change when a device is on the wireless charging pad getting charged etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate detecting an impedance change as taught by Govindaraj into Kobayashi’s device in order to improve performance.
Kobayashi and Govindaraj fails to teach starting a communication.
Teraoka teaches starting, following the interrupting, a communication with a third remote NFC device via the antenna (Sections 0307-0308, interrupting charging and then starting communication with another carrier device etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate starting a communication as taught by Teraoka into detecting an impedance change as taught by Govindaraj into Kobayashi’s device in order to reduce interference and improve new communication.
Regarding claim 11, Teraoka further teaches resuming, at an end of the communication, the mode of charge (Sections 0307-0308, interrupting charging and then starting communication with another carrier device etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi further teaches a cell phone (Sections 0037 and 0098, portable phone).
Regarding claim 13, Jang further teaches the second NFC device; and the third NFC device (Sections 0008 and 0066, NFC device communicating with the plurality of antennas with plurality of external devices etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi further teaches wherein the second NFC device is a stylus (Sections 0037 and 0098, personal digital assistant/tablet etc.).
Claims 2-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US Pat Pub# 2019/0148970) in view of Govindaraj et al. (US Pat Pub# 2017/0033591) and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US Pat Pub# 2010/0176202) and further in view of Jang et al. (US Pat Pub# 2015/0180542).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Kobayashi in view of Govindaraj and further in view of Teraoka teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 16. Kobayashi, Govindaraj, and Teraoka fail to teach at least two windings.
Jang further teaches wherein the antenna comprises at least two windings in series (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0099 and 0104-0106, windings in series etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate starting a communication as taught by Teraoka into detecting an impedance change as taught by Govindaraj into Kobayashi’s device in order to improve antenna performance.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Jang further teaches wherein each of the at least two windings in series comprise a plurality of turns (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0028-0029, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, plurality of turns).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Jang further teaches wherein a number of turns of a first winding of the at least two windings is from 6 to 8 turns (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0028-0029, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, plurality of turns).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Jang further teaches wherein a first winding of the at least two windings in series defines a first surface and a second winding defines a second surface, wherein the first surface is at least twice as large as the second surface (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0028-0029, 0067, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, different surfaces etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Jang further teaches wherein a first winding of the least two windings is arranged within a second winding of the at least two windings (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0025, 0028-0029, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, plurality of windings).
Regarding claim 7, Jang further teaches wherein a first winding of the at least two windings is arranged outside of a second winding of the at least two windings (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0025, 0028-0029, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, windings arranged in different positions etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Jang further teaches wherein the antenna comprises two windings (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0025, 0028-0029, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, plurality of windings); a first winding of the two windings configured for NFC of the second NFC device and a second winding of the two windings configured for NFC detection and communication with the third NFC device (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0008, 0025, 0028-0029, 0066, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, plurality of windings with communication with a plurality of external devices etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Jang further teaches wherein the antenna comprises a third winding in series with the first winding and the second winding, wherein the third winding is configured for NFC of a fourth NFC device (Figs. 3-6 and Sections 0008, 0025, 0028-0029, 0066, 0090, 0099 and 0104-0106, plurality of windings in series with communication with a plurality of external devices etc.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US Pat Pub# 2019/0148970) in view of Govindaraj et al. (US Pat Pub# 2017/0033591) and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US Pat Pub# 2010/0176202) and further in view of Ravani et al. (US Pat Pub# 2016/0043775).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi in view of Govindaraj and further in view of Teraoka teaches the limitations in claim 1. Kobayashi, Govindaraj, and Teraoka fail to teach a polling mode.
Ravani teaches implementing, as a result of the detection and by the NFC controller, a polling mode (Sections 0039-0040 and Claims 5, 14, 20, and 26, polling mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a polling mode as taught by Ravani into starting a communication as taught by Teraoka into detecting an impedance change as taught by Govindaraj into Kobayashi’s device in order to improve communication connection and discovery.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US Pat Pub# 2019/0148970) in view of Govindaraj et al. (US Pat Pub# 2017/0033591) and further in view of Teraoka et al. (US Pat Pub# 2010/0176202) and further in view of Bushnell (US Pat# 11,134,141).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi in view of Govindaraj and further in view of Teraoka teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 12-13. Kobayashi, Govindaraj, and Teraoka fail to teach emitting a sound.
Bushnell teaches a fourth NFC device, wherein the second NFC device is configured to emit sounds and the fourth NFC device is configured to emit sounds (Col. 18 lines 1-29, emitting a haptic vibration and audible sound etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate emitting a sound as taught by Bushnell into starting a communication as taught by Teraoka into detecting an impedance change as taught by Govindaraj into Kobayashi’s device in order to improve convenience for the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 9/9/2026
Prosecution Insights