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 .
Status of Claims
After entry of the preliminary amendment filed February 5, 2025, the pending claims are claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 5, 2025 and May 27, 2026 have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of each IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
in FIG. 10, “Second Wireless Communication Device 1002” should be “Second Wireless Communication Device 1004” (see paragraph [0124], line 2);
in FIG. 11, it appears that “Data 1” of signal 1110 corresponding to the energy pulse after the energy pulses 1121, 1122 and 1123 should be “Data 0” (see signal 1120); and
in FIG. 16, “Envelope Detection Module 1604” should be “Envelope Detection Module 1602” (see paragraph [0153], line 6) and the reference character (see “1604” for the “Envelope Detection Module”) should not cross or mingle with the lines (see 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 2, the comma should be deleted; and
in claim 19, line 2, the comma should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
With regard to claim 1, since the steps of a method claim are not interpreted as performed in a specific order where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims do not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps (see MPEP 2111.01(II)), the scope of the claim encompasses an embodiment wherein the “taking one or more actions” step is performed after the “transmitting” step. Based on the detailed description, the actions to “maintain a time-averaged voltage” via actions by the transmitter (e.g. transmitting a NULL symbol or inverted pulse) and/or the receiver (e.g. adjusting the time-averaged voltage or suspending power averaging) seem to occur prior to transmission of the RF signals including the plurality of encoded energy pulses. Therefore, the embodiment of claim 1 that performs the “taking one or more actions” step after “transmitting” step appears inconsistent with the specific details of the “one or more actions…” as described in the detailed description. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to make sense to take these actions regarding the RF signals (see lines 6-7) after the RF signals have already been transmitted (see lines 3-5).
With regard to claim 4, it is unclear how “a threshold number of energy pulses” on line 3 relates to “a plurality of energy pulses” included in the RF signals (see claim 1, line 4).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the determined threshold number of energy pulses” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, lines 2-3 recites determining that a threshold number of pulses… are to be transmitted contiguously but it does not recite determining “a threshold number of energy pulses” that provides antecedent basis for “the determined threshold number of energy pulses” on line 4.
With regard to claim 4, it is unclear how the transmitting step on lines 4-7 relates to the transmitting step in claim 1, lines 3-6. For example, are there two transmitting steps wherein RF signals without a specialized symbol are transmitted (see claim 1, lines 3-6) and RF signals with a specialized symbol also transmitted?
With regard to claim 6, it is unclear what constitutes a “NULL symbol” within the scope of the invention since claim 6 does not define details of the “NULL symbol.”
With regard to claim 8, it is unclear how “a threshold number of energy pulses” on line 3 relates to “a plurality of energy pulses” included in the RF signals (see claim 1, line 4).
With regard to claim 9, it is unclear how “transmitting the threshold number of energy pulses” relates to the step of “transmitting” the RF signals including a plurality of energy pulses in claim 1, lines 3-5. Does the “plurality of energy pulse” include the “threshold number of energy pulses”?
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Nierkerk et al. (US Patent No. 8,773,243 B1 cited in the IDS filed May 27, 2026).
With regard to claim 1, van Nierkerk et al. discloses the claimed invention including a method for wireless communication by a first wireless communication device wherein the method comprises: a. transmitting RF signals, the RF signals including a plurality of energy pulse encoded, using an encoding scheme, to indicate binary values (see RFID reader 100 in FIG. 1 and column 12, lines 17-21); and b. taking one or more actions to maintain a time-averaged voltage associated with the RF signals within a threshold range (see column 30, lines 11-53 wherein “training” and “using a preamble” reads on “taking one or more actions” to maintain a time-average voltage within a threshold range, i.e. DC-balanced which is implicitly within threshold range).
With regard to claim 2, van Nierkerk et al. discloses the claimed invention including based on the encoding scheme, the energy pulses having a first width to indicate a first binary value and a second pulse width to indicate a second binary value. (See FIG. 10B and column 30, line 54 – column 31, line 6)
With regard to claim 3, van Nierkerk et al. discloses the claimed invention including the encoding scheme comprises a pulse interval encoding (PIE) scheme. (See FIG. 10B and column 30, line 54 – column 31, line 6)
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Nierkerk et al. Van Nierkerk et al. discloses the claimed invention except for dynamically configuring the encoding scheme to encode the energy pulse of the RF signals. Since van Nierkerk et al. discloses using Manchester encoding or pulse interval encoding for the preamble (see FIGs. 10A and 10B, respectively), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch/select between the encoding schemes (i.e. “dynamically configure the encoding”) based on the decoding scheme of the receiver.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Nierkerk et al. in view of Giles (US Patent No. 6,208,696 B1).
With regard to claim 19, van Nierkerk et al. discloses the claimed invention including a method for wireless communication by a second device comprising receiving RF signals (via the “Tag antenna 104” in FIG. 1) from a first wireless device (see “RFID reader 100” in FIG. 1) wherein the RF signals include a plurality of energy pulses encoded, using an encoding scheme, to indicate binary values (see FIGs. 10A and 10B and column 30, line 24 – column 31, line 6). However, van Nierkerk et al. does not teach taking one or more actions to maintain a time-averaged voltage associated with the RF signals within a threshold range. Giles teaches maintaining/holding an average voltage derived during preamble processing and then using the derived average voltage for processing the subsequent data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Giles with that of van Nierkerk et al. in order to use an accurate average voltage for data processing.
With regard to claim 20, van Nierkerk et al. in view of Giles disclose the claimed invention including based on the encoding scheme, the energy pulses having a first width to indicate a first binary value and second pulse width to indicate a second binary value. (See van Nierkerk et al., FIG. 10B and column 30, line 54 – column 31, line 6)
Conclusion
Please note that non-cited portions of the respective references may also read on the claim limitations. Therefore, the references should be considered in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights