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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Martin Feldhofer for RF Communications Device With EMI Reduction filed 11/21/24 has been examined. Claims 16-35 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are some extra characters below the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 16,26,30, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hook et al. US Patent 5680459.
Regarding claim 16, Hook et al. teaches a Radio Frequency (RF) communications device comprising:
a pair of antenna terminals (coil 1, coil 2) connectable to an antenna (fig. 5);
an automatic gain controller (24) coupled to the antenna terminals (fig. 5) for receiving an output
current of the antenna, wherein the automatic gain controller is operable to convert the output
current of the antenna into a modulated current (the automatic gain controller controls the voltage and therefore control or modulate the current, col. 9 lines 17-32);
a rectifier (2) coupled to the automatic gain controller to receive the modulated current (fig.5, col. 4 line 58-col.5 line 4),
wherein the rectifier is operable to convert the modulated current into a rectified current (col. 4 lines 58-col. 5 line 4) and supplying power to the RF communications device (col. 6 lines 10-16);
a voltage limiter coupled to the rectifier for receiving the rectified current, wherein the
voltage limiter is operable to convert the rectified current into a limited rectified voltage for
supplying power to the RF communications device (voltage limiter is provided by regulator, col. 8 lines 27-40).
Regarding 26, Hook et al. teaches the automatic gain controller is coupled in parallel across the pair of antenna terminals (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 30, Hook teaches a device comprising:
an antenna (19); and
a Radio Frequency (RF) communications device, the Radio Frequency
communications device (col. 5 lines 15-25) comprising:
a pair of antenna terminals connected to the antenna (coil 1, coil 2), fig.5;
an automatic gain controller coupled to the antenna terminals for receiving an output current of the antenna, wherein the automatic gain controller is operable to convert the output current of the antenna into a modulated current (the automatic gain controller controls the voltage and therefore control or modulate the current, col. 9 lines 17-32);
a rectifier (2) coupled to the automatic gain controller to receive the modulated current, wherein the rectifier is operable to convert the modulated current into a rectified current (fig.5, col. 4 line 58-col.5 line 4), and
a voltage limiter coupled to the rectifier for receiving the rectified current,
wherein the voltage limiter is operable to convert the rectified current into a limited
rectified voltage for supplying power to the RF communications device (voltage limiter is provided by regulator, col. 8 lines 27-40).
.
Regarding claim 35, Hook teaches the device comprises one of an RF identification
(RFID) tag or an active powered near field communications (NFC) controller integrated
Circuit (transponder, col. 5 lines 20-34).
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook et al. US Patent 5680459 in view of Pichler et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230064494.
Regarding claims 17-18, Hook et al. is silent on teaching the voltage limiter comprises a path for diverting a portion of the rectified current, and wherein the limited rectified voltage is derived from a non-diverted remainder of the rectified current. Pichler in an analogous art teaches the voltage limiter comprises a path for diverting a portion of the rectified current, and wherein the limited rectified voltage is derived from a non-diverted remainder of the rectified current and teaches the voltage limiter is operable to produce a control signal according to a magnitude of the diverted portion of the rectified current (current is sink at an amount proportional to the difference between Vrec and Vcp, paragraph 028),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hook as disclosed by Pichler because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hook in order to provide a more stable output voltage and further providing for increases reliability.
Regarding claims 31-32, Hook et al. is silent on teaching the voltage limiter comprises a path for diverting a portion of the rectified current, and wherein the limited rectified voltage is derived from a non-diverted remainder of the rectified current. Pichler in an analogous art teaches the voltage limiter comprises a path for diverting a portion of the rectified current, and wherein the limited rectified voltage is derived from a non-diverted remainder of the rectified current and teaches the voltage limiter is operable to produce a control signal according to a magnitude of the diverted portion of the rectified current (current is sink at an amount proportional to the difference between Vrec and Vcp, paragraph 028),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hook as disclosed by Pichler because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hook in order to provide a more stable output voltage and further providing for increases reliability.
Claim(s) 20 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook et al. US Patent 5680459 in view of Pichler et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230064494 and further in view of Dumas US Patent 6122331.
Regarding claim 20, Hook is silent on teaching a digital controller for
controlling the automatic gain controller based at least in part on the control signal produced
by the voltage limiter. Dumas in an analogous art teaches a digital implementation of an automatic gain controller for controlling the automatic gain controller based at least in part on the control signal produced by the voltage limiter (col. 7 lines 51-55,col. 8 lines 45-52, col. 9 lines 20-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook in view of Pichler as disclosed by Dumas because such modification represents the selection of one type of circuit to implement the automatic gain controller from a limited number of available options (digital or analog).
Regarding claim 33, Hook is silent on teaching a digital controller for
controlling the automatic gain controller based at least in part on the control signal produced
by the voltage limiter. Dumas in an analogous art teaches a digital implementation of an automatic gain controller for controlling the automatic gain controller based at least in part on the control signal produced by the voltage limiter (col. 7 lines 51-55,col. 8 lines 45-52, col. 9 lines 20-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook in view of Pichler as disclosed by Dumas because such modification represents the selection of one type of circuit to implement the automatic gain controller from a limited number of available options (digital or analog).
Claim(s) 21 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook et al. US Patent 5680459 in view of Pichler et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230064494 in view of Dumas US Patent 6122331 and further in view of Jiang US Patent 10,971,954.
Regarding claim 21, Hook is silent on teaching the automatic gain controller comprises a resistive digital-to-analog converter (RDAC) and wherein the digital controller is operable to apply a digital control word to the RDAC to control a resistance of the RDAC. Jiang in an analogous art teaches the automatic gain controller comprises a resistive digital-to-analog converter (RDAC) and wherein the digital controller is operable to apply a digital control word to the RDAC to control a resistance of the RDAC (col. 5 lines 31-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook in view of Pichler as disclosed by Dumas as disclosed by Jiang because such modification represents the selection of one type of circuit to implement the automatic gain controller from a limited number of available options (digital or analog).
Regarding claim 34, Hook is silent on teaching the automatic gain controller comprises a resistive digital-to-analog converter (RDAC) and wherein the digital controller is operable to apply a digital control word to the RDAC to control a resistance of the RDAC. Jiang in an analogous art teaches the automatic gain controller comprises a resistive digital-to-analog converter (RDAC) and wherein the digital controller is operable to apply a digital control word to the RDAC to control a resistance of the RDAC (col. 5 lines 31-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook in view of Pichler as disclosed by Dumas as disclosed by Jiang because such modification represents the selection of one type of circuit to implement the automatic gain controller from a limited number of available options (digital or analog).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook et al. US Patent 5680459 in view of Muellner US Patent 10,038,579.
Regarding claim 27, Hook teaches the use of a rectifier (fig.5, col. 4 line 58-col.5 line 4) but is not explicit in teaching the rectifier comprises a full bridge rectifier comprising a plurality of diode-type devices. Muellner in an analogous art teaches the rectifier comprises a full bridge rectifier comprising a plurality of diode-type devices (col. 7 lines 55-col. 8 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook as disclosed by Muellner because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hook in order to provide a constant and reliable power supply.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook et al. US Patent 5680459 in view of Muellner US Patent 10,038,579 and further in view of Perreault US Patent Application Publication 20150188448.
Regarding claim 28, Hook is silent on teaching the rectifier does not include any
switched CMOS components. Perreault in an analogous art teaches the use of CMOS transistor as an alternative to the use of diode for implementing a rectifier (paragraph 06).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook as disclosed by Muellner in view of Perreault because such modification represent the substitution of one circuit for another and providing the predictable result of providing rectified output.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook et al. US Patent 5680459 in view of Biederman US Patent 11457809.
Regarding claim 29, Hook is silent on teaching a low pass filter coupled between the rectifier and the voltage limiter. Biederman in an analogous art teaches a low pass filter coupled between the rectifier and the voltage limiter (col. 5 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hook as disclosed by Biederman because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hook by removing unwanted signal from the rectified voltage and provide a more reliable power supply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 and 22-25 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.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record is silent on teaching the voltage limiter includes a
circuit operable to compare the diverted portion of the rectified current with a reference current
and to output the control signal as a digital signal indicative of the comparison.
Regarding claim 22-23, the prior art of record is silent on teaching the digital controller is operable
to decrease the resistance of the RDAC in response to a determination that the control signal
produced by voltage limiter is indicative of the diverted portion of the rectified current exceeding a predetermined threshold.
Regarding claim 24-25, the prior art of record is silent on teaching the digital controller is operable to increase the resistance of the RDAC in response to a determination that the control signal produced by the voltage limiter is indicative of the diverted portion of the rectified current falling beneath a predetermined threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights