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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
(a) "a transmission line of an output impedance Z_C" (claims 1 and 4). A transmission line is characterized by a characteristic impedance. "Output impedance" is ambiguous as to whether it denotes the line's characteristic impedance, the source impedance seen looking back through the line from its output end, or the impedance presented at the line's output terminal by whatever is connected there. The specification uses both vocabularies for different things, "output impedance" at ¶¶[0006] and [0011], but "characteristic impedance" of the input transmission line at ¶¶[0070], [0102], [0118] and [0123], without reconciling them. The ambiguity is aggravated in claim 4, which recites no power source at all, leaving "output impedance" untethered to any source.
(b) "each of the plurality of phase shifters has a phase shift angle and a characteristic impedance with which a real part of a composite admittance … is 1/Z_C" (claims 1 and 4). A composite admittance is by definition an aggregate property of all of the parallel branches taken together; it cannot be a property of "each" phase shifter individually. It is unclear whether the claim requires that the set of phase shift angles and characteristic impedances collectively produce the recited composite admittance, or some per-phase-shifter condition. The specification supports only the collective reading. See ¶[0054] ("The composite admittance as viewed from branch point 320 is the sum of two admittances") and ¶[0121] ("The sum of the real parts of the admittances of the parallel-connected phase shifters is substantially 120 mS").
(c) "as viewed from the output end point" (claims 1 and 4). The claim does not state the direction of view. The specification consistently views the composite admittance from the branch point toward the parallel lines (¶¶[0046], [0054], [0095], [0138]), but the claim language is open to viewing back toward the power source, which would yield a different quantity.
(d) "is 1/Z_C and an imaginary part is zero" (claims 1 and 4). It is unclear whether exact equality is required. Specification ¶[0121] states that for the three-frequency case "complete matching was not achieved," reporting the sums as "substantially 120 mS" and "substantially 0 mS." Paragraph [0129] states that the simulator optimization "may not result in a strict reflection rate of 0 in some cases." Paragraph [0138] expressly contemplates the imaginary part "not exactly 0," adding that "the reflection rate is often sufficiently low and is not a problem in practice." The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, because the specification does not indicate how close to 1/Z_C and to zero a design must come in order to fall within the claim.
(e) "for a plurality of conditions of an input signal" (claims 1 and 4). "Conditions" is not defined in the claim. The specification varies input power (Embodiments 2, 4, 6, 7) and input frequency (Embodiments 3, 5), and the claim does not indicate whether the plural conditions must be of the same kind, may mix kinds, or how many constitute a plurality for this purpose.
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 4 and 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perreault (US 9,531,291 B2, hereinafter “Perreault”).
Claim 4 is addressed first, as the broader of the two independent claims and as the claim not previously examined. Applicant's specification defines a phase shifter to encompass a plain transmission-line section. Spec ¶[0140]: in the microwave embodiments "an LPF, a matching circuit, and an impedance line are used as the phase shifter." Spec ¶[0154]: "The phase shifter may be an impedance line or an LC circuit." Spec ¶[0050]: each phase shifter has "two parameters, i.e., the characteristic impedance and the phase shift angle."
Perreault's branch lines are characterized in exactly those two parameters. At col. 17, the first transmission-line branch 500 has "characteristic impedance Z₀ and a length ℓ₁ corresponding to an electrical angular delay θ₁ at an operating frequency of interest," and the second branch 502 likewise has "characteristic impedance Z₀ and a different length ℓ₂ corresponding to an electrical angular delay θ₂." The lengths are expressed as a base value plus and minus a delta, Eqs. (1)–(2):
ℓ₁ = ℓ_Base + Δℓ ℓ₂ = ℓ_Base − Δℓ θ₁ = θ_Base + Δθ θ₂ = θ_Base − Δθ
and Perreault states that "we obtain desired operating characteristics at a frequency of interest by proper selection of Z₀, θ_Base, and Δθ."
Per-branch characteristic impedances are expressly contemplated, col. 17: "(Implementation of systems in which the two branches have different characteristic impedances and which operate best with different loading impedances is also possible.)" See also col. 12 as to FIG. 6D, extended "by paralleling additional rectifier-loaded quarter-wave-line branches having different characteristic impedances."
Each branch line is therefore a phase shifter having a phase shift angle and a characteristic impedance, as claimed.
At col. 17, Perreault computes the branch input admittances at the frequency of interest, Eq. (3): Y_in,1 = 1/Z_in,1 = (1/Z₀) · [Z₀ − jR_L·cot(Δθ)] / [R_L − jZ₀·cot(Δθ)] Y_in,2 = (1/Z₀) · [Z₀ + jR_L·cot(Δθ)] / [R_L + jZ₀·cot(Δθ)] and states the consequence directly: "Since these admittances are complex conjugates, the network will divide power entering the input port equally to both loads (for identical load resistances). The impedance seen at the input port at the frequency of interest is resistive in this case."
Two complex-conjugate admittances summed at the junction have an imaginary part of exactly zero. That is the claimed condition, in the claim's own terms, composite admittance, viewed from the junction, imaginary part zero, reached by the claimed means, selection of the phase shift angles θ_Base ± Δθ and the characteristic impedance Z₀.
The real part is given in closed form at Eq. (4): Z_in = R_in = [|cot(Δθ)| / 2(1 + cot²(Δθ))] · [ R_L/|cot(Δθ)| + Z₀² / (R_L/|cot(Δθ)|) ] with the conclusion that "such a characteristic clearly realizes resistance compression: the input impedance is resistive and varies only over a small range as the load resistances vary together over a wide range."
Claim 4 recites a transmission line of an output impedance Z_C; a plurality of phase shifters connected to an output end point of the transmission line; and a plurality of rectifier circuits each connected to a respective one of the plurality of phase shifters; wherein each phase shifter has a phase shift angle and a characteristic impedance with which the real part of the composite admittance as viewed from the output end point is 1/Z_C and the imaginary part is zero for a plurality of conditions of an input signal.
Claim 4 limitation
Perreault
"a transmission line of an output impedance Z_C"
FIG. 10D: the quarter-wave transformation line of characteristic impedance Z_T and electrical length θ = π/2 (λ/4), whose output end point is the compression port Z_IN. Z_T is selected per Eq. (9): Z_T = √(Z_in,T,desired · Z_in,median), so that the impedance looking back out of the line's output end point is Z_in,median, the claimed Z_C. FIG. 10F worked values: Z_0,C = 31 Ω at λ/4. Alternative and cleaner for claim 4: FIG. 10A read with the Eqs. (10)–(11) design approach, in which no separate transformation stage is needed because Z₀ and Δθ are selected to place the input resistance directly at the desired value, col. 19: "By properly selecting the differential length and the characteristic impedance, within certain bounds, one can directly realize both resistance compression and a desired specified input resistance directly with the structure of FIG. 10A."
"a plurality of phase shifters connected to an output end point of the transmission line"
FIG. 10D: branches Z₀,θ₁ and Z₀,θ₂, both connected to the compression port Z_IN. Per §5.1, each is a phase shifter having a phase shift angle and a characteristic impedance. Col. 19 design example: Δθ = π/4, giving θ₁ = 3π/4 (135°) and θ₂ = π/4 (45°). FIG. 10F: Z_0A = 62 Ω lines of 3λ/8 and λ/8; Z_0B = 38 Ω lines of 3λ/8 and λ/8.
"a plurality of rectifier circuits each connected to a respective one of the plurality of phase shifters"
Col. 20: "Combining a transmission-line resistance compression network with a set of rectifiers forms a resistance compressed rectifier system." FIG. 10F: four tuned rectifiers as loads, one per branch line. Perreault claim 5: "the first and second loads include rectifier circuits"; likewise claim 15. Tuned rectifier topologies at FIGS. 3A–3D (Schottky), 3E (class E/F), 4A–4B (transistor / synchronous).
the wherein clause
Imaginary part zero: Eq. (3) and the complex-conjugate holding, §5.2. Real part 1/Z_C: Eq. (4) in closed form, and Eqs. (10)–(11) for setting it to a specified value, Z₀ = R_L,center / √(R_L,center/R_in,min − 1) and cot(Δθ) = √(R_L,center/R_in,min − 1). Plurality of input-signal conditions: FIG. 10F holds Z_IN,B at 19–19.4 Ω resistive (so annotated on the drawing sheet) while the rectifiers swing Z_RECT ≈ 24–160 Ω over an input power range of 0.125–1.07 W at V_RO = 7 V. Col. 8: tuned rectifiers give "nearly resistive input resistance characteristics across a wide power range (e.g., impedance phase magnitude of less than 20 degrees over more than a 5:1 power range)." A plurality of frequency conditions is separately disclosed at col. 18: "with appropriate selections of base length at a desired fundamental frequency, the system can be designed to also provide resistance compression at one or more harmonic frequencies (and at subharmonic frequencies)."
Claim 1 recites the combination of claim 4 with the additional requirement that the transmission line have "an input end point connected to an alternating current power source." Perreault discloses that limitation:
FIG. 1 shows the RF INPUT feeding RF input network 16, which distributes power to the plurality of tuned rectifier circuits 14. Col. 5 describes the arrangement as "a termination to a radio-frequency power receiver (such as an antenna or coil)." Col. 14 names the applications: "rectenna systems, wireless power transfer systems, inductive power coupling systems, radio-frequency power converter systems including RF dc-dc converters, and microwave power transmission systems." In FIG. 10D the transformation line's input is the system input port Z_IN,T; in FIG. 10F, Z_IN,C ≈ 50 Ω.
Col. 10 describes FIG. 3F as "a pair of tuned rectifiers preceded by a resistance compression network having a pair of 50 ohm transmission line segments" with "an RF input impedance near 50 Ohms," which reads attractively on the claims. The drawing sheet shows that this is the FIG. 6C architecture, not a TLRCN: both lines are Z₀ = 50 Ω at the same delay, T_D = 0.1168 ns, and the compression is performed by the shunt reactances −jx₁ and +jx₁ (elements 240, 242 in FIG. 6C), not by asymmetric phase shift angles. FIG. 3F therefore does not read on phase shifters having phase shift angles "with which" the composite admittance condition is met, because there the angles are equal and do no work. FIGS. 10A, 10D, 10E and 10F are the asymmetric-length figures and they carry the rejection on their own.
Applicant is likely to argue that Perreault achieves only compression of a range, not a composite admittance whose real part is 1/Z_C with an imaginary part that is zero.
The record answers this twice. First, Eq. (3)'s complex-conjugate result and the accompanying statement that "the impedance seen at the input port at the frequency of interest is resistive" is an exact disclosure of a zero imaginary part, not an approximation; and Eqs. (10)–(11) are a procedure for setting the real part to a specified value.
Second, applicant's own specification forecloses reading the claim as demanding mathematical exactness. See ¶¶[0121], [0129] and [0138], quoted at §4(d). Applicant cannot rely on those paragraphs for written-description support of the disclosed embodiments while reading the same claim language as requiring exactness in order to distinguish the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Perreault.
To the extent Perreault is argued not to disclose the exact recited condition, Perreault supplies the closed-form methodology for driving the network to it: Eqs. (1)–(11), including selection of base length, differential length and branch characteristic impedance, and Eq. (9) for the transformation-stage impedance. Arriving at a nominally perfect match at a selected operating condition using the reference's own design equations is the optimization of a result-effective variable, the phase shift angle. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II).
Motivation is stated in Perreault at col. 5: rectifiers at microwave frequencies "present effective input impedances that are difficult to make resistive and which vary with RF power level and dc output voltage," and "in systems having a high peak-to-average power ratio, the problem is particularly challenging." That is the same problem recited at spec ¶¶[0008] and [0032].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on (571) 270-7101. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
11/23/2026
Prosecution Insights