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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) of claims 1 and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 5-7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain et al. (US20110128200; hereinafter Hossain) in view of Oshiyama et al. (US7420511; hereinafter Oshiyama).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “A device, comprising: an antenna having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (114); an electrical load (115) electrically connected to the antenna; a signal generator (111) connected to the first end (right side) of the antenna and configured to apply an alternating electrical signal to the electrically loaded antenna such that a standing wave propagates along an effective length of the antenna; and a switching apparatus (116) connected to the second end (left side) of the antenna and configured to vary an effective length of the antenna such that a standing wave propagating along the antenna is phase and position offset by a configurable amount when the switching apparatus is operated (¶[0047]; The switch bank unit 116 is a circuit capable of switching a ground point, and is provided between the ground 120 and the end of the side in which the inner arm 114 is not connected to the outer arm 113. The switch bank unit 116 includes a plurality of capacitor switches that are connected to different positions on the ground 120. Each switch can be turned on or off independently. In an example of FIG. 3, the switch bank unit 116 includes five switches and the number of the switches can be changed), wherein the switching apparatus includes one or more paths to an electrical ground positioned at intervals along a length of the antenna (paths of 116) on a side of the electrical load opposite the signal generator (load is offset from 114 so switch is on second side end and signal generator is on first side end)”.
Hossain does not disclose “such that the electrical load is positioned between the signal generator and the one or more paths to the electrical ground”.
However, Oshiyama teaches “such that the electrical load (16/18/20) is positioned between the signal generator (12) and the one or more paths to the electrical ground (paths B/C/D)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Oshiyama and make Hossain’s device such that the electrical load is positioned between the signal generator and the one or more paths to the electrical ground, in order to modify the signal within the antenna.
Regarding claim 3, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more paths to the electrical ground includes a secondary electrical load (switches contain capacitors)”.
Regarding claim 5, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the electrical load is configured with a variable impedance (¶[0046]; The LC resonance circuit 115 is regarded as one example of the variable impedance unit 14 according to the first embodiment)”.
Regarding claim 6, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured with a cyclical operation that includes an active period in which the standing wave is held constant and an inactive period in which an amplitude or phase of the standing wave is modified, and the switching apparatus is configured to vary the effective length of the antenna during the inactive period (prior art recites all elements of the antenna claimed previously, therefore it is ‘configured to’ be operated as claim in claim 6 (see examiners note in claim interpretation))”.
Regarding claim 7, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to extract data from one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (¶[0006]; Further, there is proposed a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag reading system capable of easily setting a shape of a reading area where an RFID tag is readable. This RFID tag reading system includes a first antenna that is connected to a reading device via a feeding wire, a second antenna that is located rightly in the radiation direction of the first antenna, and a third antenna that is connected to the second antenna via a feeding wire)”.
Regarding claim 10, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The device of claim 1, wherein the switching apparatus varies the effective length of the antenna such that the standing wave propagating along the antenna is phase and position offset such that points along the effective length of the antenna are subjected to an amplitude equal to or between a preselected minimum and maximum amplitude of the standing wave at least once during a full cycle of operation of the switching apparatus (see fig. 3 and description of antenna in ¶[0047])”.
Regarding independent claim 12, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “A method, comprising: electrically loading, via an electrical load (115), an antenna having a first end and a second end opposite the first end; applying, via a signal generator (111) connected to the first end (right end) of the antenna an alternating electrical signal (111) to the electrically loaded antenna (load 115) such that an electrical standing wave propagates along an effective length of the antenna; providing, via a switching apparatus connected to the second end of the antenna (116), a first path to an electrical ground along an effective length of the antenna such that the standing wave propagates at a first phase and position; and providing, via the switching apparatus (116), a second path to the electrical ground along the effective length of the antenna such that the standing wave propagates at a second phase and position, wherein the first path to the electrical ground and the second path to the electrical ground are positioned at a first location and a second location (see fig. 3), respectively, along a length of the antenna on a side of the electrical load opposite the signal generator (load is offset from 114 so switch is on second side end and signal generator is on first side end)”.
Hossain does not disclose “such that the electrical load is positioned between the signal generator and the one or more paths to the electrical ground”.
However, Oshiyama teaches “such that the electrical load (16/18/20) is positioned between the signal generator (12) and the one or more paths to the electrical ground (paths B/C/D)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Oshiyama and make Hossain’s device such that the electrical load is positioned between the signal generator and the one or more paths to the electrical ground, in order to modify the signal within the antenna.
Regarding claim 14, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The method of claim 12, wherein each of the first path to the electrical ground and the second path to the electrical ground includes a secondary electrical load (each switch has a capacitor)”.
Regarding claim 16, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The method of claim 12, wherein the electrical load is configured with a variable impedance (¶[0046])”.
Regarding claim 18, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The method of claim 12, further comprising extracting data from one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (¶[0006])”.
Regarding claim 20, Hossain (fig. 3) discloses “The method of claim 12, wherein the switching apparatus varies the effective length of the antenna such that the standing wave propagating along the antenna is phase and position offset such that points along the effective length of the antenna are subjected to an amplitude equal to or between a preselected minimum and maximum amplitude of the standing wave at least once during a full cycle of operation of the switching apparatus (see fig. 3 and description of switch in ¶[0047])”.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain and Oshiyama in view of Ramachandran et al. (US20170104266; hereinafter Ramachandran).
Regarding claim 4, Hossain discloses the device of claim 3 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “wherein a first secondary electrical load is configured with a different impedance than a second secondary electrical load”.
However, Ramachandran teaches in the field of antenna length switches “wherein a first secondary electrical load is configured with a different impedance than a second secondary electrical load (¶[0060]; The dual resonance can be achieved by adding impedance components at the switch outputs 122, 124, 126. For example, in one exemplary embodiment, switch output 122 will be connected to ground and switch output 126 can have an inductive or capacitive impedance attached thereto)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ramachandran and make Hossain’s device wherein a first secondary electrical load is configured with a different impedance than a second secondary electrical load, in order to impedance match the signals from each branch.
Regarding claim 15, Hossain discloses the method of claim 12 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “wherein a first secondary electrical load of the first path to the electrical ground is configured with a different impedance than a second secondary electrical load of the second path to the electrical ground”.
However, Ramachandran teaches in the field of antenna length switches “wherein a first secondary electrical load of the first path to the electrical ground is configured with a different impedance than a second secondary electrical load of the second path to the electrical ground (¶[0060])”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ramachandran and make Hossain’s method wherein a first secondary electrical load of the first path to the electrical ground is configured with a different impedance than a second secondary electrical load of the second path to the electrical ground, in order to impedance match the signals from each branch.
Claims 8-9, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain and Oshiyama in view of Pallas et al. (US20180069311; hereinafter Pallas).
Regarding claim 8, Hossain discloses the device of claim 7 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “wherein the device is configured to extract data from the one or more RFID tags at a distance equal to or less than 16% of a wavelength of the standing wave”.
However, Pallas teaches in the field of antenna length switches that the operating distance for RFID devices will be dependent and modified by the switching modes to change between near-field (less than 16%) and far-field (greater than 16%) (¶[0048]; In a first embodiment, access control reader 110a may oscillate between near-field antenna configuration 200a and combined near-field and far-field antenna configuration 200b. In a second embodiment, access control reader 110a may oscillate between near-field antenna configuration 200a and far-field antenna configuration 200c. The oscillation may take place on the order of 20-200 Hz, wherein a greater oscillation frequency can provide a greater resolution with respect to the movement and position of a given RFID tag in the vicinity of access control reader 110a, although it is understood that other oscillation frequencies may be implemented as needed or as desired for a given application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Pallas and make Hossain’s device wherein the device is configured to extract data from the one or more RFID tags at a distance equal to or less than 16% of a wavelength of the standing wave, in order to cover near-field communications.
Regarding claim 9, Hossain discloses the device of claim 7 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “wherein the device is configured to extract data from the one or more RFID tags at a distance greater than or equal to 16% of a wavelength of the standing wave”.
However, Pallas teaches in the field of antenna length switches that the operating distance for RFID devices will be dependent and modified by the switching modes to change between near-field (less than 16%) and far-field (greater than 16%) (¶[0048]; In a first embodiment, access control reader 110a may oscillate between near-field antenna configuration 200a and combined near-field and far-field antenna configuration 200b. In a second embodiment, access control reader 110a may oscillate between near-field antenna configuration 200a and far-field antenna configuration 200c. The oscillation may take place on the order of 20-200 Hz, wherein a greater oscillation frequency can provide a greater resolution with respect to the movement and position of a given RFID tag in the vicinity of access control reader 110a, although it is understood that other oscillation frequencies may be implemented as needed or as desired for a given application)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Pallas and make Hossain’s device wherein the device is configured to extract data from the one or more RFID tags at a distance greater than or equal to 16% of a wavelength of the standing wave, in order to cover far-field communications.
Regarding claim 17, Hossain discloses the method of claim 12 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “further comprising: designating an active period of a cycle of operation of the antenna in which the standing wave is held constant; and designating an inactive period of a cycle of operation of the antenna in which an amplitude or phase of the standing wave is modified, during which the switching apparatus is configured to vary the effective length of the antenna”.
However, Pallas teaches in the field of antenna length switches “further comprising: designating an active period of a cycle of operation of the antenna in which the standing wave is held constant; and designating an inactive period of a cycle of operation of the antenna in which an amplitude or phase of the standing wave is modified, during which the switching apparatus is configured to vary the effective length of the antenna (Pallas is an antenna system that has a scanning mode where it switches between multiple antenna lengths (inactive period) to find the desired operating configuration and hold that configuration for RFID scanning (active period)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Pallas and make Hossain’s method further comprising: designating an active period of a cycle of operation of the antenna in which the standing wave is held constant; and designating an inactive period of a cycle of operation of the antenna in which an amplitude or phase of the standing wave is modified, during which the switching apparatus is configured to vary the effective length of the antenna, in order to cover change between the various operating modes.
Regarding claim 19, Hossain discloses the method of claim 18 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “further comprising extracting data from the one or more RFID tags at a distance equal to or less than 16% of a wavelength of the standing wave”.
However, Pallas teaches in the field of antenna length switches that the operating distance for RFID devices will be dependent and modified by the switching modes to change between near-field (less than 16%) and far-field (greater than 16%) (¶[0048]; In a first embodiment, access control reader 110a may oscillate between near-field antenna configuration 200a and combined near-field and far-field antenna configuration 200b. In a second embodiment, access control reader 110a may oscillate between near-field antenna configuration 200a and far-field antenna configuration 200c. The oscillation may take place on the order of 20-200 Hz, wherein a greater oscillation frequency can provide a greater resolution with respect to the movement and position of a given RFID tag in the vicinity of access control reader 110a, although it is understood that other oscillation frequencies may be implemented as needed or as desired for a given application)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Pallas and make Hossain’s method further comprising extracting data from the one or more RFID tags at a distance equal to or less than 16% of a wavelength of the standing wave, in order to cover near-field communications.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain and Oshiyama in view of Caimi et al. (US20070222697; hereinafter Caimi).
Regarding claim 11, Hossain discloses the device of claim 1 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “wherein the switching apparatus includes at least one field effect transistor”.
However, Caimi teaches in the field of antenna length switches “wherein the switching apparatus includes at least one field effect transistor (¶[0142]; The various switching elements identified in FIGS. 19-21 can be implemented by discrete switches (e.g., PIN diodes, control field effect transistors, micro-electro-mechanical systems, or other switching technologies known in the art))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Caimi and make Hossain’s device wherein the switching apparatus includes at least one field effect transistor, in order to control the switching of the switching apparatus electronically.
Regarding claim 21, Hossain discloses the device of claim 12 as shown previously.
Hossain does not disclose “wherein the switching apparatus includes at least one field effect transistor”.
However, Caimi teaches in the field of antenna length switches “wherein the switching apparatus includes at least one field effect transistor (¶[0142]; The various switching elements identified in FIGS. 19-21 can be implemented by discrete switches (e.g., PIN diodes, control field effect transistors, micro-electro-mechanical systems, or other switching technologies known in the art))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Caimi and make Hossain’s method wherein the switching apparatus includes at least one field effect transistor, in order to control the switching of the switching apparatus electronically.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. 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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights