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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ella et al. (US 2023/0093885).
In regard to Claim 1:
Ella discloses, in Figure 4-2, an alternating current signal transfer apparatus comprising:
a transmission line (Figure 2-2: 276);
a plurality of first phase shifters (454-1, 454-2 of 132-1) connected to the transmission line (¶ 0061) at a branching point (462);
a plurality of first resonators having same circuit topology (resonators of 134-1, 134-2 shown in Figure 3-2), each first resonator being connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of first phase shifters (Figure 3-2: 324-1, 324-2); and a plurality of second resonators (Figure 3-2: 326-1, 326-2); and
a plurality of second phase shifters (454-1, 454-2 of 132-2), each connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of second resonators (Figure 3-2: 326-1, 326-2), wherein the plurality of second phase shifters (454-1, 454-2 of 132-2) are connected at a connecting point (464),
wherein each of the plurality of first resonators is coupled with a corresponding one of the plurality of second resonators to form a resonator pair (324-1, 326-1 and 324-2, 326-2 are respectively coupled in pairs),
wherein coupling coefficients of the plurality of resonator pairs are equal to each other even when a coupling state changes (¶ 0084), and
wherein phase shift angles of the plurality of first phase shifters are set such that matching is established for at least two different coupling coefficients (¶ 0067).
In regard to Claim 5:
Ella discloses the alternating current signal transfer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transmission line (Figure 2-2: 276) is connected to a zero-ohm power source (GND) via a reactance element or an impedance line (Figure 3-2: 322-2 as part of filter circuit 130 in Figure 2-2).
In regard to Claim 7:
Ella discloses, in Figure 4-2, an alternating current apparatus comprising:
a transmission line (Figure 2-2: 276);
a plurality of phase shifters (454-1, 454-2 of 132-1) connected to the transmission line at a branching point (462); and
a plurality of resonators of same circuit topology (resonators of 134-1, 134-2 shown in Figure 3-2), each connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of phase shifters (454-1, 454-2 of 132-1),
wherein the plurality of phase shifters are set to different phase shift angles (¶ 0087).
In regard to Claim 12:
Ella discloses the alternating current signal transfer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first resonators and the plurality of second resonators have a same resonance frequency (¶ 0108), and wherein the matching is established at the branching point (462) and at the connecting point (464) at the resonance frequency (¶ 0108).
In regard to Claim 13:
Ella discloses the alternating current apparatus according to claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of resonators is coupled with a resonator of another apparatus to form a resonator pair having a coupling coefficient equal to each other regardless of a coupling state (¶ 0108), and wherein the matching is established at the branching point (462) at a resonance frequency of the plurality of resonators (¶ 0108).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ella et al. (US 2023/0093885), in view of Katabi et al. (US 10,992,159).
In regard to Claim 3:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein resonators of each of the plurality of resonator pairs include a coil and a capacitor.
Katabi discloses, in Figure 1, wherein resonators of each of the plurality of resonator pairs include a coil (112) and a capacitor (Cs1, Cs2, CsZ respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the coil and capacitors taught by Katabi with the resonators taught by Ella, in order to prevent interruption of optimal or near-optimal power transfer to the receivers, and can provide a measure of fairness among multiple receivers (Katabi Column 1: lines 53-56).
In regard to Claim 8:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the resonator includes a coil and a capacitor.
Katabi discloses, in Figure 1, wherein the resonator includes a coil (112) and a capacitor (Cs1, Cs2, CsZ respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the coil and capacitors taught by Katabi with the resonators taught by Ella, in order to prevent interruption of optimal or near-optimal power transfer to the receivers, and can provide a measure of fairness among multiple receivers (Katabi Column 1: lines 53-56).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ella et al. (US 2023/0093885), in view of Gerlach (US 4,185,252).
In regard to Claim 4:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein resonators of each of the plurality of resonator pairs are open-ring resonators.
Gerlach discloses, in Figure 8, wherein resonators of each of the plurality of resonator pairs (22, 66) are open-ring resonators (Column 5: lines 14-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the open ring resonators taught by Gerlach with the resonators taught by Ella, in order to have a tunable resonator that is driven by a TRAPATT diode and which provides a graceful degradation backup capability (Gerlach Column 2: lines 26-29).
In regard to Claim 9:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the resonator is an open-ring resonator.
Gerlach discloses wherein the resonator (22, 66) is an open-ring resonator (Column 5: lines 14-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the open ring resonators taught by Gerlach with the resonators taught by Ella, in order to have a tunable resonator that is driven by a TRAPATT diode and which provides a graceful degradation backup capability (Gerlach Column 2: lines 26-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights