Detailed Action
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because figures 1-7 use rectangular/circular boxes to represent some elements, and the boxes do not include a label to indicate what each box represents. All rectangular/circular boxes must include a label describing what each box represents in addition to a number so one of ordinary skill in the art could quickly identify what each box represents. No new matter should be entered.
Boxes 20, 30 and 40 in figure 1 need a label.
Boxes 20, 30, 100, 110 and 120 in figure 2 need a label.
Boxes 20, 30, 60 and 70 in figure 3 need a label.
Boxes 20, 30, 60, 70 and 80 in figure 4 need a label.
Boxes 20, 30, and 50 in figure 5 need a label.
Boxes 20 and 30 in figure 6 need a label.
Boxes 20, 30, 60 and 70 in figure 7 need a label.
Figures 3-7 are objected because numeral 10 does not point to any structure or element shown in the figures. The applicant’s specification states that element 10 is a transmission apparatus. However, number 10 in figures 3-7 is not pointing to the transmission apparatus. It appears that numeral 10 is pointing to the body 90, but the body 90 and the transmission apparatus are two different components. For the reasons provided above, figures 3-7 are objected.
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 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) 1-3, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U).
In regards to claim 1, Donlan teaches a sensor system comprising at least one passive sensor disposed on the inner surface of a container (to-be-measured body), wherein the at least one passive sensor is configured to sense to-be-measured information inside the to-be-measured body [fig. 1A element 128-4, col. 4 L. 47-48, col. 5 L. 10-12, L. 18, L. 21-25, L. 43-41 and L. 46-50].
Donlan teaches that the at least one passive sensor receives power wirelessly [col. 5 L. 46-50]. This teaching means that the system comprises an antenna (transmission apparatus) that communicates with the at least one passive sensor. However, Donlan does not teach that antenna is disposed on the inner surface of the to-be-measured body.
On the other hand, Yang teaches that a system comprising at least one passive sensor inside a to-be measured body can also comprise an antenna (transmission apparatus) disposed on the inner surface of the to-be-measured body [fig. 1 element 20, pg. 5 L. 7-10 and L. 22-27].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yang’s teachings of disposing the transmission apparatus on an inner surface of the to-be-measured body in the system taught by the Donlan because it will permit to read measured information of passive sensor inside the container in a reliable manner.
The combination of Donlan and Yang does not explicitly teaches that the at least one passive sensor is disposed at a distance less than or equal to a first threshold from the transmission apparatus. However, it is inherent that the at least one passive sensor has a communication range (first threshold) in which it can reliably communicate with the transmission apparatus because the communication between the at least one passive sensor and the transmission apparatus communicate in a wireless manner using electromagnetic signals [see Donlan col. 5 L. 46-50, see Yang pg. 5 L. 22-27]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the transmission apparatus at a distance that is less or equal to the communication range (first threshold) from the at least one passive sensor because it will permit the at least one passive sensor to communicate reliably with the transmission apparatus.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the sensor system comprises a reader (processing apparatus) coupled to the transmission apparatus and configured to process a sensor signal from the passive sensor [see Donlan col. 5 L. 46-50, see Yang fig. 1 element 30, pg. 5 L. 10-14 and L. 22-25, pg. 6 L. 24-33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yang’s teachings of having a reader that processes the sensor signal from the passive sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the reader to display the sensed parameters and provide alarms based on the sensed parameters.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the processing apparatus and the transmission apparatus are connected through a wired transmission component [see Yang fig. 1 element 23, pg. 5 L. 10-14, pg. 6 L. 1-9].
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, does not teach that the processing apparatus is disposed inside a space formed by the to-be-measured body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would know that the location of the processing apparatus does not affect the functionality of the system, and the location depends on where the user wants to place the processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place the processing apparatus at the claimed location because it will permit to process the sensor data reliably without using space outside the to-be-measured body.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the antenna (transmission apparatus) transmits power to a sensor that could be an RFID sensor or a SAW sensor [see Donlan col. 5 L. 47-49, see Yang pg. 5 L. 25-27]. This teaching means that the transmission apparatus is a near field antenna. In other words, the transmission apparatus is coupled to a near-field antenna.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nivala (US-11,723,489).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the processing apparatus is disposed outside a space formed by the to-be-measured body [see Yang fig. 1 element 30].
The combination teaches that the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus communicate with each other in a wired manner [see Yang fig. 1 elements 21, 23 and 30]. However, the combination does not teach that the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus can communicate with each other in a wireless manner.
On the other hand, Nivala teaches that a transmission apparatus that is in communication with a sensor inside a to-be-measured body can function as a repeater and bi-directionally communicate wirelessly with a processing apparatus [fig. 3 elements 310 (transmission apparatus) and 10 (processing apparatus), col. 4 L. 27-35 and L. 27-41, col. 6 L. 4-9]. This teaching means that the system comprises a first antenna configured to transmit to the transmission apparatus, and the system comprises a second antenna configured to transmit to the processing apparatus and configured to communicate with the first antenna, to transmit the sensor signal from the sensor to the processing apparatus through the transmission apparatus by using a first electromagnetic wave of a first frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Nivala’s teachings of having wireless communication between the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit measured parameter to a processing apparatus that is located remotely from the to-be-measured body.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the processing apparatus is disposed outside a space formed by the to-be-measured body [see Yang fig. 1 element 30].
The combination teaches that the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus communicate with each other in a wired manner [see Yang fig. 1 elements 21, 23 and 30]. However, the combination does not teach that the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus can communicate with each other in a wireless manner.
On the other hand, Nivala teaches that a transmission apparatus that is in communication with a sensor inside a to-be-measured body can function as a repeater and bi-directionally communicate wirelessly with a processing apparatus [fig. 3 elements 310 (transmission apparatus) and 10 (processing apparatus), col. 4 L. 27-35 and L. 27-41, col. 6 L. 4-9]. This teaching means that the processing apparatus and the transmission apparatus are connected in a wireless manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Nivala’s teachings of having wireless communication between the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit measured parameter to a processing apparatus that is located remotely from the to-be-measured body.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U) and Nivala (US-11,723,489) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sohn et al. (WO2017039072A1).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Donlan, Yang and Nivala, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that transmission apparatus can function as a repeater and bi-directionally communicate wirelessly with a processing apparatus [see Nivala fig. 3 elements 310 (transmission apparatus) and 10 (processing apparatus), col. 4 L. 27-35 and L. 27-41, col. 6 L. 4-9]. However, the combination does not teach that the system comprises a charging apparatus, coupled to the transmission apparatus and configured to charge the passive sensor by using a second electromagnetic wave of a second frequency.
On the other hand, Sohn teaches that a transmission apparatus, configured to work as a repeater and to provide power wirelessly to a sensor, can comprise a voltage controlled oscillator (charging apparatus) that permits to relay a power signal received from a processing apparatus to a sensor using a second electromagnetic wave of a second frequency [fig. 3 element 222, pg. 2 L. 55-58, pg. 5 L. 16-17 and L. 23-28]. This teaching means that the system comprises a charging apparatus, coupled to the transmission apparatus and configured to charge the sensor by using a second electromagnetic wave of a second frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sohn’s teachings of having a charging apparatus in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the transmission apparatus to relay the power received from the processing apparatus to the passive sensor in order the passive sensor can perform its functions.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Donlan, Yang, Nivala and Sohn, as applied in the rejection of claim 5 above, further teaches that the charging apparatus comprises a voltage controlled oscillator (continuous wave exciter) [see Sohn fig. 3 element 222, pg. 2 L. 55-58, pg. 5 L. 23-25].
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U), Nivala (US-11,723,489) and Sohn et al. (WO2017039072A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hannan et al. (US-8,660,165).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Donlan, Yang, Nivala and Sohn, as applied in claim 5 above, does not teach that the system comprises an isolation apparatus disposed between the first antenna and the transmission apparatus.
On the other hand, Hannan teaches that a repeater can comprise a duplexer (isolation apparatus) between a receiving antenna (first antenna) and a transmission antenna (transmission apparatus) to isolate a downlink path and an uplink path [fig. 2 elements 18 and 32, col. 3 L. 63-65]. This teaching means that the system comprises an isolation apparatus disposed between the first antenna and the transmission apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hannan’s teachings of having an isolation apparatus in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to prevent interference between the received/transmitted signals from/to the processing apparatus and the signals received/transmitted by the transmission apparatus.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Donlan, Yang, Nivala, Sohn and Hannan, as applied in claim 6 above, teaches that that the system comprises a duplexer (isolation apparatus) between a receiving antenna (first antenna) and a transmission antenna (transmission apparatus) to isolate a downlink path and an uplink path [see Hannan fig. 2 elements 18 and 32, col. 3 L. 63-65]. This teaching means if the same frequency is used for reception and transmission of signals the signals will be isolated by the duplexer. In other words, the isolation apparatus comprises a duplexer configured to work when the first frequency is equal to the second frequency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hannan et al. (US-8,660,165).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in claim 3 above, teaches that the antenna (transmission apparatus) relays a signal received via a wired connection from the processing apparatus to the sensor [see Yang fig. 1 element 23, pg. 5 L. 10-20, pg. 6 L. 1-9]. This teaching means that the system comprises a wired transmission component that receives the signal via the wired connection in order the transmission apparatus can relay the signal to the sensor. In other words, the wired transmission component and the transmission apparatus work together as a repeater. However, the combination does not teach that the system comprises an isolation apparatus disposed between the wired transmission component and the transmission apparatus.
On the other hand, Hannan teaches that a repeater can comprise a duplexer (isolation apparatus) between a receiving part of the repeater and the transmission part of the repeater to isolate a downlink path and an uplink path [fig. 2 elements 18 and 32, col. 3 L. 63-65]. This teaching means that the system comprises an isolation apparatus disposed between the receiving part of the repeater and the transmission part of the repeater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hannan’s teachings of having an isolation apparatus in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to prevent interference between the received/transmitted signals from/to the processing apparatus and the signals received/transmitted by the transmission apparatus.
The combination of Donlan, Yang and Hannan teaches that a repeater can comprise a duplexer (isolation apparatus) between a receiving part of the repeater and the transmission part of the repeater to isolate a downlink path and an uplink path [see Hannan fig. 2 elements 18 and 32, col. 3 L. 63-65]. The combination also teaches that the transmission apparatus (transmitting part of the repeater) relays a signal received from the wired transmission component (receiving part of the repeater) [see Yang fig. 1 element 23, pg. 5 L. 10-20, pg. 6 L. 1-9]. These teachings means that the system comprises duplexer (isolation apparatus) disposed between the wired transmission component and the transmission apparatus.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U), Nivala (US-11,723,489), Sohn et al. (WO2017039072A1) and Hannan et al. (US-8,660,165) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hanson et al. (US-8,948,687).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Donlan, Yang, Nivala, Sohn and Hannan, as applied in claim 6 above, teaches that that the system comprises an isolation apparatus between a receiving antenna (first antenna) and a transmission antenna (transmission apparatus) to isolate a downlink path and an uplink path [see Hannan fig. 2 elements 18 and 32, col. 3 L. 63-65]. However, the combination does not teach that the isolation apparatus comprises a filter configured to work when the first frequency is not equal to the second frequency.
On the other hand, Hanson teaches that a repeater, that relays signals using a different frequency than the received signals, can comprise a frequency selective filter to attenuate feedback [col. 1 L. 55-64]. This teaching means that the isolation apparatus comprises a filter configured to work when the first frequency is not equal to the second frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hanson’s teachings of having a filter as an isolation apparatus when different frequencies are used in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to attenuate feedback when the same frequency of the received signals is used to relay the signals.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nivala (US-11,723,489) and Sohn et al. (WO2017039072A1).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the processing apparatus is disposed outside a space formed by the to-be-measured body [see Yang fig. 1 element 30].
The combination teaches that the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus communicate with each other in a wired manner [see Yang fig. 1 elements 21, 23 and 30]. However, the combination does not teach that the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus can communicate with each other in a wireless manner.
On the other hand, Nivala teaches that a transmission apparatus that is in communication with a sensor inside a to-be-measured body can function as a repeater and bi-directionally communicate wirelessly with a processing apparatus [fig. 3 elements 310 (transmission apparatus) and 10 (processing apparatus), col. 4 L. 27-35 and L. 27-41, col. 6 L. 4-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Nivala’s teachings of having wireless communication between the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit measured parameter to a processing apparatus that is located remotely from the to-be-measured body.
The combination of Donlan, Yang and Nivala does not teach that the system comprises a power amplifier, coupled between the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus and configured to amplify the sensor signal from the transmission apparatus.
On the other hand, Sohn teaches that a transmission apparatus, configured to work as a repeater and to provide power wirelessly to a sensor, can comprise a power amplifier that amplifies a signal to be transmitted in a frequency and that the frequency can be used to transmit data received from a sensor to a processing apparatus [fig. 3 element 224, pg. 5 L. 24-25, pg. 6 L. 31-33 and L. 36-37]. This teaching means that the system comprises a power amplifier coupled between the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus and configured to amplify the sensor signal from the transmission apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sohn’s teachings of having a power amplifier in the system taught by the combination because it will permit reliable communications between the transmission apparatus and the processing apparatus.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US-2010/0141536).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that that the transmission apparatus is an antenna [see Yang fig. 1 element 20]. However, the combination does not teach that the antenna is a non-closed transmission line.
Zhang teaches that it is well known in the art that the most basic form of an antenna is an open loop transmission line (non-closed transmission line) [par. 0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Zhang’s teachings of using an open loop antenna to transmit electromagnetic signals in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to transmit signals reliably.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donlan et al. (US-9,558,468) in view of Yang et al. (CN-204988540U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sohn et al. (WO2017039072A1).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Donlan and Yang, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the transmission apparatus is coupled to an antenna [see Yang fig. 1 element 20]. However, the combination does not teach that the antenna is a far field antenna.
On the other hand, Sohn teaches that a repeater relaying wireless power signals can use a far field antennas to relay the signals [fig. 3 element 230, pg. 5 L. 23-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Sohn’s teachings of using a far field antenna in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to provide power to sensors that are located at great distance from the transmission apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are 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.
In regards to claim 7, the prior art cited in this office action does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: a distribution apparatus; disposed between the isolation apparatus and the transmission apparatus, wherein an input end of the distribution apparatus is connected to the isolation apparatus, a first output end of the distribution apparatus is connected to the charging apparatus, and a second output end of the distribution apparatus is connected to the transmission apparatus, wherein the charging apparatus is configured to charge the passive sensor based on a signal of the distribution apparatus.
In regards to claim 8, the claim would be allowable due to its dependency on claim 7.
In regards to claim 15, the prior art cited in this office action does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: wherein the to-be-measured body comprises a plurality of body parts that are movable relative to each other, the transmission apparatus comprises a plurality of adjacent transmission sections, each transmission section is located on a corresponding body part and has two end parts, and one of the end parts is connected to a waveguide through an adapter element; and when the plurality of body parts are on a first relative position, a distance between the waveguide connected to one of the end parts of the transmission section and the waveguide connected to another one of the end parts of an adjacent transmission section is less than a second threshold.
In regards to claim 16, the claim would be allowable due to its dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688