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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024 and 08/14/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEwan (US PAT 5832772) in view of Erkkila et al. (US PAT 9535505 hereinafter Erkkila).
Regarding claim 1, McEwan teaches A (Title “Micropower RF Material Proximity Sensor”):
at least one antenna (Abstract “An antenna”),
an impedance sensing circuit coupled to the antenna and operable to quantitatively measure variations of an antenna impedance over time (para 9 “The apparatus comprises an antenna which has a characteristic impedance which depends on the materials in proximity to the antenna. An oscillator, which includes the antenna, produces an oscillating signal. A detector is coupled to the oscillator to detect changes in the oscillating signal caused by changes in the materials in proximity to the antenna.”), and
a controller (para 12 “a control circuit”) connected to the impedance sensing circuit and operable to at least one of selectively deactivating and selectively activating the impedance sensing circuit for a predefined time interval (para 4 “The oscillator 10 can be turned on and off with a very low duty cycle, such as in the embodiment shown in FIG. 1 where the pulse repetition frequency is about 67 Hz, and the pulse width generated by the pulse forming network 19 is about 15 microseconds.”).
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches A wireless proximity detector arrangement (Abstract “a wireless proximity detection module configured to detect a proximity of an input control entity with respect to the physical activity monitoring device and output a control signal as a response to the detection”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 1, (Abstract “The oscillator is turned on and off at a pulse repetition frequency with a low duty cycle to conserve power. The antenna consists of a straight monopole about one-quarter wavelength long at the nominal frequency of the oscillator.”).
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches wherein the controller is operable to selectively activate the impedance sensing circuit (para 30 “the proximity detection module 52 may activate the impedance conversion circuitry upon receiving an activation signal through a user interface of the training computer, e.g. user operation of a physical button or selection of a determined operating mode. As response to the activation, the impedance conversion circuitry may start the sensing of the gestures from the impedance of the antennas 700, 702.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the impedance sensing circuit comprises a measuring oscillator coupled to the antenna (Abstract “An antenna has a characteristic impedance which depends on the materials in proximity to the antenna. An RF oscillator, which includes the antenna and is based on a single transistor in a Colpitt's configuration, produces an oscillating signal.”), and wherein variations of the antenna impedance are quantitatively measurable by measuring at least one of a control signal for operating the measuring oscillator, an amplitude signal of the measuring oscillator and a frequency signal of the measuring oscillator (para 12 “characterized as an apparatus for detecting proximity of a material which comprises an antenna, a bipolar transistor having its collector coupled to the antenna and forming a resonant circuit which oscillates at a nominal frequency with an amplitude dependent on the presence of material in proximity to the antenna”; para 2 “A pulse forming network 19 generates a sequence of pulses which turn off and on the oscillator 10 with a pulse repetition frequency.”).
Regarding claim 6, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the impedance sensing circuit comprises an amplitude detector connected to an output of the measuring oscillator (claim 4 “wherein the detector is responsive to amplitude of the oscillator signal.”).
Regarding claim 7, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 6, wherein the measuring oscillator is operable at a constant bias current (para 12 “The base of the transistor is coupled to a bias potential, and the emitter of the transistor is coupled to a control circuit which turns the oscillator on and off at a pulse repetition frequency”) and wherein the amplitude detector is operable to measure variations of a signal amplitude of the measuring oscillator in response to variations of the antenna impedance (claim 4 “the detector is responsive to amplitude of the oscillator signal.”; Abstract “An antenna has a characteristic impedance which depends on the materials in proximity to the antenna. An RF oscillator, which includes the antenna and is based on a single transistor in a Colpitt's configuration”).
Regarding claim 10, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 3,
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches wherein the impedance sensing circuit comprises a frequency counter connected to an output of the oscillator (As a response, the resonance frequency of the resonance circuitries 704, 706 changes and they output a changed resonance signal to a frequency counter module 710. The frequency counter 710 may be configured to map the detected resonance frequencies of the resonance circuitries 710 to a determined control signal and output the control signal to the user interface controller.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 10,
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches wherein the oscillator is operable to vary an oscillation frequency in response to impedance variations of the antenna and wherein the frequency counter is operable to quantitatively measure the oscillation frequency variations (para 28 “As a response, the resonance frequency of the resonance circuitries 704, 706 changes and they output a changed resonance signal to a frequency counter module 710. The frequency counter 710 may be configured to map the detected resonance frequencies of the resonance circuitries 710 to a determined control signal and output the control signal to the user interface controller.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, McEwan teaches An electronic device comprising (fig 3)
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches a user interface to control or to modify a function of the electronic device, wherein the user interface comprises a wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 1 (Title “Interface Control In Portable System”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, McEwan teaches A method of detecting and/or quantitatively measuring a spatiotemporal movement of an object relative to a wireless proximity detector arrangement, the method comprising the steps of (para 5 “proximity sensors that can sense through the walls of plastic vats or containers to determine the fill levels within the vats, especially for acids or flammable fluids”):
a) providing a wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 1 ([see claim 1]),
b) activating an impedance sensing circuit of the wireless proximity detector arrangement for a predefined time interval (Abstract “The oscillator is turned on and off at a pulse repetition frequency with a low duty cycle”),
c) quantitatively measuring variations of an antenna impedance over time by way of the impedance sensing circuit coupled to the antenna of the wireless proximity detector arrangement (para 9 “The apparatus comprises an antenna which has a characteristic impedance which depends on the materials in proximity to the antenna. An oscillator, which includes the antenna, produces an oscillating signal. A detector is coupled to the oscillator to detect changes in the oscillating signal caused by changes in the materials in proximity to the antenna.”),
d) deactivating the impedance sensing circuit for a predefined time interval (Abstract “The oscillator is turned on and off at a pulse repetition frequency with a low duty cycle”; para 13 “According to one aspect of the invention, the duty cycle of the control circuit is less than 1%, for instance 0.1%.”),
e) optionally repeating the steps b), c) and d) and
f)
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches deriving or quantitatively determining a spatiotemporal movement of the object relative to the wireless proximity detector arrangement on the basis of the variations of the antenna impedance (para 28 “The resonance frequencies or resonance frequency combinations stored in the detection database 72 may represent static position of the input control entity with respect to the antenna(s) 700, 702 or motion of the input control entity with respect to the antenna(s) 700, 702. Accordingly, a single resonance frequency, a single resonance frequency per antenna, or a sequence of resonance frequencies per antenna may be mapped to each control signal.”; para 25 “The proximity detection module 52 may comprise at least one antenna 700, 702 and an antenna impedance monitoring circuitry configured to monitor a change in antenna impedance caused by moving the input control entity with respect to the at least one antenna and to output the control signal according to the monitored antenna impedance.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEwan (US PAT 5832772) in view of Erkkila et al. (US PAT 9535505 hereinafter Erkkila) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tillotson (US PAT 9110118).
Regarding claim 4, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 3,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Tillotson teaches wherein the measuring oscillator is coupled to an automatic gain controller operable to fix a signal amplitude of the measuring oscillator (Abstract “The proximity sensor includes a variable gain oscillator, a feedback circuit, and a proximity determination circuit. The variable gain oscillator has a gain that varies with the proximity of a target”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Tillotson with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Tillotson para 14). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Tillotson merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both the cited prior art and Tillotson disclose similar circuitry for proximity detection/gesture recognition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 4,
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Tillotson teaches wherein the automatic gain controller is operable to provide an amplitude control bias current to the measuring oscillator (Abstract “The variable gain oscillator has a gain that varies with the proximity of a target to a sensor coil, generates an oscillating electrical signal having a substantially constant amplitude magnitude, and generates an energy signal representative of the electrical energy needed to sustain oscillations”), which amplitude control bias current is subject to measurable variations in response to variations of the antenna impedance wherein the automatic gain controller is operable to provide an amplitude control bias current to the measuring oscillator (para 19 “The feedback signal 118 will thus increase the bias on the transistor 206, which increases its gain and corrects the amplitude magnitude decrease”), which amplitude control bias current is subject to measurable variations in response to variations of the antenna impedance (para 16 “the magnitude of the voltage drop across the emitter resistor 208-3 is representative of the electrical energy being supplied to the variable gain oscillator 102, and these variations constitute the energy signal 122 that is supplied to the proximity determination circuit 106.”; para 16 “variations in the gain of the transistor circuit 202 result in variations of the electrical energy that the variable gain oscillator 102 needs to sustain its oscillations.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Tillotson with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Tillotson para 14). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Tillotson merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both the cited prior art and Tillotson disclose similar circuitry for proximity detection/gesture recognition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEwan (US PAT 5832772) in view of Erkkila et al. (US PAT 9535505 hereinafter Erkkila) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mochizuki (US 20110280338).
Regarding claim 8, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 3,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mochizuki teaches
wherein the impedance sensing circuit comprises a phase locked loop coupled to the oscillator and coupled to a reference frequency generator (0052 “Thus, a loop of a phase synchronization circuit (Phase Locked Loop, PLL circuit, synchronization circuit) 25 may be formed to control the voltage controlled oscillator 17 so as to synchronize the reference frequency signal with the 1PPS signal which is the reference signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mochizuki with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the LO operation (Mochizuki 0072). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mochizuki merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both the cited prior art and Mochizuki disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 8,
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mochizuki teaches
wherein the phase locked loop is operable to fix a frequency of the oscillator by way of a frequency control signal derivable by a comparison of the relative phases between an output signal of the oscillator and a reference signal provided by the reference frequency generator (0076 “The phase comparator 10 included in the local oscillator 7 receives the comparison signal 71 obtained by dividing the LO signal 53 output from the VCO 8 by the frequency divider 9 and the reference signal 72 obtained by dividing the frequency of the signal output from the reference signal generator 12 by the frequency divider 13, and compares the phases of these signals.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mochizuki with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the LO operation (Mochizuki 0072). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mochizuki merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both the cited prior art and Mochizuki disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEwan (US PAT 5832772) in view of Erkkila et al. (US PAT 9535505 hereinafter Erkkila) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pernia et al. (US 20080100350 hereinafter Pernia).
Regarding claim 12, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 3,
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pernia teaches wherein the impedance sensing circuit operable to drive the oscillator in a spread spectrum mode (0019 “In additional exemplary embodiments, the spread spectrum controller is further adapted to modify the effective reactance by switching an inductance to or from the reference oscillator. More generally, the spread spectrum controller may be further adapted to modify an effective impedance of the reference oscillator, or to modify an effective resistance of the reference oscillator, or to modify an amplitude of the reference signal of the reference oscillator”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pernia with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Pernia 0117). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pernia merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both the cited prior art and Pernia disclose similar impedance circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McEwan (US PAT 5832772) in view of Erkkila et al. (US PAT 9535505 hereinafter Erkkila) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Li et al. (US PAT 10595742 hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 13, McEwan teaches The wireless proximity detector arrangement according to claim 1,
McEwan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Erkkila teaches wherein the controller comprises (para 15 “The memory 70 may further store a detection database 72 storing mapping information”), wherein the digital storage is operable to store numerous temporal evolutions of impedance signals (para 28 “a single resonance frequency, a single resonance frequency per antenna, or a sequence of resonance frequencies per antenna may be mapped to each control signal.”) and wherein the pattern of an object relative to the antenna (para 29 “Different motions of the hand within the proximity of the antennas may trigger different functions in the physical activity monitoring device according to the changes in the electromagnetic field sensed by the antennas and the impedance conversion circuitry.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Erkkila with the teachings of McEwan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user experience (Erkkila para 2). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Erkkila merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both McEwan and Erkkila disclose similar proximity detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Li teaches using a neural network/machine classifiers for gesture characterization (para 100 “measurement of the reflected power includes measurement of parameters related to reflected power, such as measurements of antenna impedance and the like to classify the body activities.”; para 114 “Another algorithm that may be useful in processing the comparisons in block 160 is known as a deep learning algorithm (“DLA”). DLA is also known as deep structured learning, or hierarchical learning, or deep machine learning.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Li with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve gesture measurement and classification (Li para 7). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Li merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since both the cited prior art and Li disclose similar circuitry, gesture measurements and use of signals, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Schulman et al. (US 20060192628) discloses “An automatic tuning system for a magnetic field generating tuned circuit includes a processor configured to maintain the resonant frequency of a tuned circuit equal to a reference frequency. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights