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 .
The application of Elshafie et al. for an “interference reduction techniques between passive wireless devices” filed on November 14, 2024 has been examined.
This application claims priority to a 371 of PCT/CN2022/106626, which is filed on July 20, 2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means for” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claim 1, 9 and 17, the limitation that recite(s) “one or more interfaces configured to” is being treated in accordance with 112(f) because the functions of "one or more interfaces” is modified by the term “configured to” which is a word that serves as a generic placeholder for structure that performs the recited functions.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed in the claim construction above, and a careful review of the specification is found that the disclosure does not provide support for the limitations. Examiner believes that the apparatus comprising one or more interfaces and further a controller to obtaining the indication of the communications signature.
In conclusion, limitations “one or more interfaces configured to” is considered to invoke 35 U.S.C 112(f).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Referring to claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected Claims 1, 9 and 17 above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US# 10,599,888).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. disclose an apparatus for wireless communication at a passive wireless device (306) (column 1 lines 34 to column 2 line 9; see Figures 1 to 3), comprising: one or more interfaces (configured to) (i.e. The tag device 306, such as a RFID tag, may include an antenna and a sensor configured to obtain sensor readings that can be wirelessly transmitted to the reader device 302 via the antenna) (column 4 lines 27 to 39; column 8 lines 10 to 15; see Figures 1 and 2):
obtain an indication of a communications signature, from a set of communications
signatures, that is specific to backscattered communications from a source device to a reader device via the passive wireless device, wherein the communications signature is associated with interference avoidance for the backscattered communications (i.e. the unique identifier for a particular tag device may be a unique identifier that was determined during an initial “factory-level” calibration and configuration of the particular tag device (e.g., initial sensor calibration, setting initial oscillator tuning levels, etc.). Alternatively, the unique identifier may have been determined at another point in time, or may be determined during the process of obtaining it (e.g., the reader device interrogates the tag device or other tag device that provides or determines the unique identifier) (column 8 lines 15 to 23; see Figures 1 and 2);
obtain a first message from the source device (308) (i.e. in addition to storing the portion (i.e., a first portion) of the configuration parameters at the reader device 302 and/or other device(s), the reader device 302 (and/or the computing device 308, in some examples) communicates at least another portion (i.e., a second portion) of the configuration parameters to the tag device 306. In examples where the computing device 308 performs the obtaining described at step 202, the computing device 308 may subsequently download from a server 110 a first portion of the configuration parameters associated with a particular tag device to store either locally at the computing device 308 or remotely at the reader device 302. The computing device 308 may also download a second portion of the configuration parameters of the particular tag device and communicate the second portion to the particular tag device) (column 11 lines 15 to 29; see Figure 3); and
output, to the reader device (302), a second message via a backscattering of the first message and in accordance with the communications signature (i.e. the tag device 306 may then transmit, via backscatter radiation, data representative of the sensor reading, data representative of the tag device's unique identifier, and possibly other information. Upon receiving the sensor reading, the reader device 302 may then retrieve, from the at least one memory, the calibration information (e.g., calibration curves) and other relevant information of the first portion of the configuration parameters based on the unique identifier) (column 10 lines 39 to 59; column 11 lines 30 to 40; see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more interfaces are further configured to: output an indication of a capability of the passive wireless device associated with the interference avoidance for the backscattered communications, wherein the communications signature is associated with the capability of the passive wireless device (i.e. the tag device 306 can be configured to provide a sensor reading to the reader device 302 after receiving an interrogation signal from the reader device 302. The reader device 302 can then interpret the sensor reading using the first portion of configuration parameters, such as calibration information associated with the tag device 306) (column 11 lines 30 to 41; see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to obtain the indication of the communications signature, the one or more interfaces are further configured to: obtain an indication of a time domain code sequence, wherein the communications signature includes the time domain code sequence (i.e. the unique identifier may include information associated with where the tag device was fabricated, when it was fabricated, and/or other tag devices that it was fabricated with. Further, the unique identifier may take the form of a substantially unique bit sequence that is generated when the tag device is initially calibrated and configured, such as the substantially unique identification sequence noted above) (column 3 lines 20 to 37; column 5 lines 46 to 58; see Figure 3B).
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to obtain the indication of the communications signature, the one or more interfaces are further configured to: obtain an indication of a power scaling factor, wherein the communications signature includes the power scaling factor (i.e. the unique identifier for a particular tag device may be a unique identifier that was determined during an initial “factory-level” calibration and configuration of the particular tag device (e.g., initial sensor calibration, setting initial oscillator tuning levels, etc.). Alternatively, the unique identifier may have been determined at another point in time, or may be determined during the process of obtaining it (e.g., the reader device interrogates the tag device or other tag device that provides or determines the unique identifier) (column 8 lines 10 to 23).
Referring to claims 9-10, 14 and 17-19, Lin et al. disclose an apparatus for wireless communication at a reader device and an apparatus for wireless communication at a source device, although different in scope from the claims 1-3 and 6, the claims 9-10, 14 and 17-19 contains similar limitations in that the claims 1-3 and 6 already addressed above therefore claims 9-10, 14 and 17-19 are also rejected for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1-3 and 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claims 4, 11 and 20, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations that wherein, to output the second message via the backscattering of the first message and in accordance with the communications signature, the processing system is configured to:
apply the time domain code sequence to a plurality of repetitions of the first message,
wherein the time domain code sequence is associated with a sequence of elements, and wherein a respective element of the sequence of elements is applied to each successive repetition of the plurality of repetitions of the first message.
Referring to claim 7, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations that further comprising a processing system, wherein, to output the second message via the backscattering of the first message and in accordance with the communications signature, the processing system is configured to:
apply the power scaling factor to the second message, wherein the communications signature includes the power scaling factor, wherein the power scaling factor is associated with a first priority or a first quality of service (QoS) associated with the passive wireless device, or associated with a second priority or a second QoS associated with the first message.
Referring to claim 8, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations that wherein: the one or more interfaces are further configured to: obtain an indication of a bandwidth associated with the first message, wherein a frequency domain filtering of the backscattered communications from the passive wireless device is associated with the indication of the bandwidth; and a processing system is configured to:
perform energy harvesting using first radio frequency energy received within the
bandwidth associated with the first message and using second radio frequency energy received
outside of the bandwidth associated with the first message; and
filter the second radio frequency energy received outside of the bandwidth associated
with the first message to focus the backscattering of the first message to the bandwidth associated with the first message.
Referring to claim 15, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations that wherein, to obtain the message via the backscattering from the passive wireless device and in accordance with the communications signature, the one or more interfaces are further configured to:
obtain radio frequency signaling associated with a set of messages, wherein the set of
messages includes the message, wherein each message of the set of messages is associated with reflected signaling from a different passive reflective device, and wherein each passive wireless device is associated with a different power scaling factor; and
extract the message from the radio frequency signaling in accordance with a successive
cancellation technique associated with the power scaling factor.
Referring to claim 16, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations that wherein, to obtain the indication of the communications signature, the one or more interfaces are further configured to:
obtain an indication of a power scaling factor of the source device, wherein the
communications signature includes the power scaling factor of the source device, and wherein the power scaling factor of the source device is used in accordance with one or more other wireless devices using a same sub-channel as a sub-channel used by the source device and the reader device, wherein the power scaling factor of the source device is associated with the sub-channel used by the source device and the reader device, a first set of distances between the reader device and the one or more other wireless devices, a second set of distances between the passive wireless device and the one or more other wireless devices, or a transmit power used by the one or more other wireless devices, or any combination thereof.
Claim 5 and 12-13 depend directly upon dependent claims 4 and 11; therefore, these claims are also allowed by virtue of their dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685