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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-16, 18-20, 23 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petros et al (US 2002/060646 A1), hereinafter Petros, in view of Shinkawa et al (US 2021/0058122 A1), hereinafter Shinkawa. (Both applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Petros (Figure 3) teaches a non-invasive communication apparatus for a fixed structure fixed to the ground and comprising glass, the apparatus comprising:
a power transfer coupler 107 (para [0037] and [0038]) configured to wirelessly transfer power, via the glass 86 of the fixed structure, to an external assembly 84 configured to be mounted to an outside surface of the fixed structure, the power transfer coupler comprising:
a transmit coil 112 disposed on an inside surface of the glass; and
a receive coil 106 disposed on an outside surface of the glass adjacent the transmit coil;
one or more information transfer couplers 104/108/110/114 configured to wirelessly communicate information signals via the glass (para [0033] and [0034]), each of the information transfer couplers comprising:
a first coupler 110 and 114 disposed on the inside surface of the glass; and
a second coupler 104 and 108 disposed on the outside surface of the glass adjacent the first coupler and coupled with the external assembly; and an inside assembly configured to be situated inside the fixed structure and coupled with the first coupler.
Petros does not explicitly teach that the transmitting coil, receiving coil, first coupler, and second coupler are substantially transparent.
Shinkawa (Figure 1 and para [0060]) teaches a communication apparatus comprising substantially transparent transmit coil 130, receive coil 120, first coupler 135, and second coupler 125.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the coils and couplers of Petros to be substantially transparent, as taught by Shinkawa, doing so would provide high performance communication with invisible aesthetic appeal.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively, Petros (Figure 3) teaches that the external assembly 84 comprises an antenna 88, and the first and second couplers 104 and 108 comprise radio frequency (RF) couplers.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, as applied to claims 5 and 18, respectively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the inside assembly 82 to comprise one or both of a Wi-Fi router and a Fixed Wireless Access unit in order to facilitate wireless signal transfer.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the external assembly 84 to comprise a Fixed Wireless Access unit coupled to an antenna in order to facilitate wireless signal transfer.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, as applied to claims 7 and 20, respectively, Petros (Figure 3) teaches that the first and second couplers 104 and 108 comprise radio frequency (RF) couplers.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, as applied to claims 7 and 20, respectively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the inside assembly 82 to comprise one or both of a Wi-Fi router and a computer in order to facilitate wireless signal transfer.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Shinkawa (para [0064]) teaches using adhesive to mount antennas on glass is considered equivalent to the transmit coil being configured for affixation, via a substantially transparent adhesive, to the inside surface of the glass; and the receive coil being configured for affixation, via a substantially transparent adhesive, to the outside surface of the glass.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Petros (Figure 3) teaches that the transmit coil 112 is an integrally formed structure of the inside surface of the glass; and the receive coil 106 is an integrally formed structure of the outside surface of the glass.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, Shinkawa (para [0064]) teaches using adhesive to mount antennas on glass is considered equivalent to the first coupler 114 being configured for affixation, via a substantially transparent adhesive, to the inside surface of the glass; and the second coupler 108 being configured for affixation, via a substantially transparent adhesive, to the outside surface of the glass.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 1, Petros (Figure 3) teaches that the first coupler 114 is an integrally formed structure of the inside surface of the glass; and the second coupler 108 is an integrally formed structure of the outside surface of the glass.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Shinkawa (para [0060]) teaches that one or more of the information transfer couplers comprises one or both of a metal structure (metal oxide) and a dielectric structure configured to transfer control signals and data via electrical or magnetic coupling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 17 and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, neither Petros nor Shinkawa further teaches that each of the external assembly and the inside assembly comprises a transceiver and an antenna.
Regarding claim 3, neither Petros nor Shinkawa further teaches a plurality of the information transfer couplers each coupled to one of a plurality of transceiver-antenna modules of the external assembly and one of a plurality of transceiver-antenna modules of the inside assembly.
Claim 4 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 3.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, neither Petros nor Shinkawa specifically teaches that the first and second couplers comprise optical couplers.
Regarding claim 17, neither Petros nor Shinkawa further teaches that each of the external assembly and the inside assembly comprises a plurality of transceiver-antenna modules, and the external assembly comprises a switch arrangement; and the method comprises coupling and decoupling selected transceiver-antenna modules of the external assembly to/from the transceiver-antenna modules of the inside assembly using the switch arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang (US 2020/0298773) discloses a wireless power transfer system through glass of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845