DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 12/30/2025.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 16, 18, 19, 21-32, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (2016/0314390).
As to claims 16 and 28: Wu teaches a front-end circuit for a radio frequency identification (RFID) transponder, the front- end circuit comprising:
a rectifier configured to rectify an input voltage received from an antenna (paragraph 0039, figure 1, rectifier circuit connected to antenna);
a voltage limiter operatively coupled to the rectifier, said voltage limiter being configured to limit an output voltage of the rectifier (paragraph 0041); and
a level detector operatively coupled to the voltage limiter (figure 4, 33 connected to 34), said level detector being configured to generate an output signal indicative of a comparison of a level of an output signal of the voltage limiter with a predefined reference level (paragraph 0052; paragraphs 0073-0075, wherein the comparator selectively alters the voltage amplitude range as a result of its output control signal, as seen in figure 4); and
wherein the RFID transponder is configured to selectively adjust an operating range in response to the output signal generated by the level detector (claim 1, paragraphs 0009, 0017, 0073-0075).
As to claims 18 and 31: Wu teaches that one or more of the level detector or the output signal of the voltage limiter are configured to be enabled by a digital control circuit comprised in the RFID transponder (claim 1, paragraph 0075).
As to claims 19 and 32: Wu teaches that one or more of the level detector or the output signal of the voltage limiter are configured to be enabled during a boot-up of an integrated circuit comprised in the RFID transponder (paragraph 0075, wherein the comparator automatically works when the threshold ON voltage is reached).
As to claims 21 and 34: Wu teaches that the one or more of the level detector or the output signal of the voltage limiter are permanently enabled (paragraph 0075, level detector is always enabled after the power ON).
As to claims 22 and 34: Wu teaches that one or more of the level detector or the output signal of the voltage limiter are periodically enabled (claim 1, wherein the rectifier circuit is closed periodically, which is the output signal of the voltage limiter being periodically enabled).
As to claims 23 and 35: Wu teaches that the output signal of the voltage limiter is a function of a current dissipated by the voltage limiter (paragraph 0075, wherein the output travels to the ground, explained in paragraph 0007).
As to claim 24: Wu teaches that the output signal of the voltage limiter is a current or a voltage (abstract, claim 1).
As to claim 25: Wu teaches that one or more of the rectifier, voltage limiter, or level detector have configurable circuit parameters (paragraph 0050).
As to claim 26: Wu teaches an RFID transponder comprising the front-end circuit of claim 16 and an integrated circuit operatively coupled to an output of the voltage limiter (paragraph 0007).
As to claim 27: Wu teaches that the integrated circuit is configured to refrain from responding to a command received from an external reader if the level of the output signal of the voltage limiter is below the predefined reference level (paragraph 0075, wherein the comparator does not operate below 0.7V).
As to claim 29: Wu teaches that selectively adjusting the operating range comprises reducing a maximum operating range in response to the output signal to prevent undesirable tracking of a tag via a long distance to safeguard privacy (claim 1, paragraphs 0009, 0017, 0073-0075, wherein the limitations about preventing undesirable tracking are functional language, and Wu alters the operating range).
As to claim 30: Wu teaches that in response to receiving a radio frequency (RF) power from a transponder antenna, the method further comprises selectively responding to the received RF power when the output signal indicates the output voltage of the voltage limiter exceeds the predefined reference level (paragraphs 0073-0075, claim 1).
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.
2. Claims 17, 20 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2016/0314390) as applied to claims 16 and 31, and further in view of Sato (7,583,180). The limitations of Wu are discussed above.
As to claims 17, 20 and 33: Wu teaches the limitations of claims 16 and 31.
Wu is silent as to that the RFID transponder is configured to receive a command from an external reader and the device is enabled as a result of this signal.
Sato teaches an RFID transponder which has a rectifier (figure 1, 11) and level adjustor (14), wherein the function of these elements is determined based off of a command received from an external reader (figure 8, S802 -> S816, wherein the command activates the comparator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Sato so that the invention of Wu might be improved by increasing the detail of the RFID transponder discussed in the application, and clarify a cause of failure of write operation from a reader writer to an IC tag (Sato, column 4, lines 29-33). Wu’s invention is a zoomed in version of a rectifier circuit on an RFID transponder, and is envisioned to be used with the exterior detail discussed in Sato, as Sato discusses a rectifier circuit for the same purpose. It would not require undue testing to combine the two inventions, as the overlap the same field of endeavor heavily.
Response to Amendment
Independent claims are amended to include that the output is from the rectifier circuit. Claims are further amended to remove informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wu does not teach a level detector configured to generate an output signal indicative of a comparison level of an output signal of the voltage limited with a predetermined reference level because Wu discloses that the output terminal of the threshold comparator unit is grounded.
Examiner agrees that the threshold comparator unit is connected to a ground which acts as a drain for the circuit (paragraph 0056). However, the threshold comparator unit in Wu clearly does not simply dump current into the ground and have no other function, otherwise the component would not operate as explained in Wu, it would merely be a segment of wire. This threshold comparator unit plainly outputs a signal to the control unit, which, in turn, changes the operation of the package to change the output level of the antenna. As quoted from Wu paragraph 0075:
“…so that the threshold comparator unit of this power supply detection and judgment circuit is turned on and outputs a low-level signal to the logic signal generator unit. Then, an odd number of inverters connected in series in the logic signal generator unit output this low-level signal … so as to turn on the N-type MOS transistor.” (emphasis added)
Examiner contends this straightforwardly teaches that the comparator unit in Wu teaches the limitations of the claims, and examiner believes that applicant is unintentionally reading Wu to be nonfunctional, which is clearly not the case. Were the ground in Wu to function as presented in the arguments, the entire device would be trivial. It appears that the ground is connected to drain off current in situations where the referenced voltage is above the threshold comparator unit’s voltage threshold, it is used to bleed current off through the ground, and furthermore, use the ground as a drain for the circuit at large. So, while this threshold comparator does have a ground as an output, it also outputs information to the control circuit which effects the amount of current which is drained as a result.
As is such, examiner disagrees with arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-6:30. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on (571)272-2398. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876