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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 09/22/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2310036 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 09/16/2024 has been considered and placed of record in the file.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath or Declaration is being considered by examiner and complies with PTO requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, -- receive -- should be added before “a reception signal” in line 2.
Regarding claim 8, “a magnetic field” should be changed to – the magnetic field – in line 4; “the modulation signal” should be changed to – a modulation signal – in lines 6-7; “the transmit circuit” should be changed to – a transmit circuit – in line 7; “the amplitude” should be changed to – an amplitude – in line 7; and “the input” should be changed to – an input – in line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a phase-locked loop configured to receive in claim 2; and a control input configured to receive in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the compensated delay depending on the amplitude of the reception signal and on a target amplitude of the modulation signal delivered at the output of the transmit circuit” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. In ¶ [0022] of the Specification, the exact word by word of the rejected limitation is recited. However, there is no other disclosure in the Specification that further explain the rejected limitation. Nevertheless, in ¶ [0048-0049], the RFO signal i.e. modulation signal, is intended to be in phase with the RFI signal i.e. reception signal by compensating the delay
δ
T
X
of the RFO signal and the amplitude of the RFI signal. There is no further recitation in the Specification that explains how the compensated delay is depending in part on a target amplitude of the modulation signal delivered at the output of the transmit circuit. The Specification is insufficient for one of ordinary skilled in the art to understand the claimed limitation as which the compensated delay being depending on a target amplitude of the modulation signal delivered at the output of the transmit circuit. Therefore claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 9-12 are rejected under the same scope as being dependent on the rejected independent claim 8. For examining purpose, the limitation is interpreted as according to ¶ [0049] of the Specification as “the compensated delay depending on the amplitude of the reception signal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the application of the phase-shift value" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hueber et al. US 2019/0074914 in view of Cordier US 2017/0163357.
Consider claim 1, Hueber discloses A device of contactless communication by active load modulation (see FIG. 3 and 6 and ¶ [0047]), comprising:
a receive circuit having an input configured to a reception signal originating from a magnetic field intended to be received by an antenna (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0049-0050], wherein the analog receive “RX” 314 configured to receive a reception signal originating from a magnetic field intended to be received by an antenna 312);
a transmit circuit having an output coupled to the antenna and configured to generate a modulation signal in phase with the reception signal intended to be delivered to the output (see FIG. 1 and 3 and ¶ [0042] and [0046], wherein the TX driver 318 coupled to the antenna 312, and configured to modulate a carrier signal with the adjusted phase configuration, wherein the phase configuration may be a relative phase setting between the received signal and the transmitted carrier phase); and
a compensation circuit configured to determine a phase-shift value to be applied to an input signal of the transmit circuit (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0042] and [0054], wherein the phase configuration adjustment module 302 determines a phase tune to be applied to an input signal of the TX driver 318).
However Hueber does not explicitly disclose the compensation circuit configured to compensate for a delay of the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and an amplitude of the reception signal. Cordier teaches the compensation circuit configured to compensate for a delay of the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and an amplitude of the reception signal (see ¶ [0056], wherein the phase difference compensates for internal delays experienced by the reader signal i.e. reception signal, and the generated load modulation signal). Cordier further discloses a phase calibration in a frontend circuit of an NFC tag device (see ¶ [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Hueber, and to include the compensation circuit configured to compensate for a delay of the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and an amplitude of the reception signal, as taught by Cordier for the purpose of a phase calibration in a frontend circuit of an NFC tag device.
Consider claim 8, Hueber discloses A method of contactless communication between a reader and a device, comprising the following steps:
detecting a magnetic field by the device (see ¶ [0047], wherein the communication device and a corresponding reader both generate a magnetic field);
when a magnetic field is detected by the device, transmitting a first clock signal by a receive circuit of the device receiving as an input a reception signal originating from the magnetic field (see FIG. 3, ¶ [0047] and [0049], wherein clock generation circuit 316 output a clock to synchronize to the received clock of the analog RX 314 for receiving a reception signal originating from the magnetic field);
measuring, by a compensation circuit of the device, and compensating the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and to the amplitude of the reception signal in a signal applied at the input of the transmit circuit of the device, the compensated delay depending on the amplitude of the reception signal (see FIG. 3 and 6, and ¶ [0042], [0054], and [0059], wherein the phase configuration adjustment module 302 determines phase configuration in response to the RSSI/field strength of the reception signal, and apply the phase configuration to the TX driver as input for compensation of the modulation signal); and
applying, by the transmit circuit of the device, the modulation signal to an antenna (see FIG. 3 and 6, wherein the output of TX driver 618 is applied to antenna 612 via matching network 610).
However Hueber does not explicitly disclose compensate for a delay of the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and an amplitude of the reception signal. Cordier teaches compensate for a delay of the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and an amplitude of the reception signal (see ¶ [0056], wherein the phase difference compensates for internal delays experienced by the reader signal i.e. reception signal, and the generated load modulation signal). Cordier further discloses a phase calibration in a frontend circuit of an NFC tag device (see ¶ [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Hueber, and to include compensate for a delay of the modulation signal due to the transmit circuit and an amplitude of the reception signal, as taught by Cordier for the purpose of a phase calibration in a frontend circuit of an NFC tag device.
Consider claim 5, Cordier discloses wherein the compensation circuit comprises a phase difference circuit configured to measure a phase difference between the input signal of the transmit circuit and a delayed signal corresponding to the input signal of the transmit circuit delayed by said delay (see ¶ [0056], wherein the phase differences compensates for internal delays experienced by the reader signal i.e. reception signal, and the generated load modulation signal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE N TIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-1888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/JANICE N TIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633