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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection and teaching of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument has been updated based on, and necessitated by amendment. See new ground of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-6, 32-35, 37, 38, 47-52 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 discloses “wherein said RF power sensor alerts a user, when said environmental condition or said operating condition has occurred, which may result in said RF power sensor not maintaining a specified measurement uncertainty”. At best the Specification discloses “a need exists for a RF power sensor”…” inform the user whether recalibration is required if an out-of-calibration condition is detected”. Further “power sensor statistics are outputted to the user”. However the claim(s) contains specific subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, therefore the amended claim limitations are considered new matter.
Claim 4 discloses “wherein said RF power sensor illuminates to alert a user, when said environmental condition or said operating condition has occurred, which may result in said RF power sensor not maintaining a specified measurement uncertainty wherein said power sensor adjusts its own calibration to maintain a measurement”. At best the Specification discloses “a need exists for a RF power sensor”…” inform the user whether recalibration is required if an out-of-calibration condition is detected”. Further “power sensor statistics are outputted to the user”. However the claim(s) contains specific subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, therefore the amended claim limitations are considered new matter. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim 6 discloses “further comprising a real-time clock wherein the RF power sensor uses a microcontroller to determine if a predetermined recommended calibration time-interval has elapsed since a last calibration wherein said power”. The claim(s) contains specific subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, therefore the amended claim limitations are considered new matter. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim 32 discloses “alerting a user, when said environmental condition or said operating condition has occurred, which may result in said RF power sensor not maintaining a specified measurement uncertainty”. At best the Specification discloses “a need exists for a RF power sensor”…” inform the user whether recalibration is required if an out-of-calibration condition is detected”. Further “power sensor statistics are outputted to the user”. However the claim(s) contains specific subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, therefore the amended claim limitations are considered new matter. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim 47 discloses “alerting a user, when said environmental condition and/or said operating condition has occurred, which may result in said RF power sensor not maintaining a specified measurement uncertainty”. At best the Specification discloses “a need exists for a RF power sensor”…” inform the user whether recalibration is required if an out-of-calibration condition is detected”. Further “power sensor statistics are outputted to the user”. However the claim(s) contains specific subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, therefore the amended claim limitations are considered new matter. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bojer et al. (US 20240426881), hereinafter ‘Bojer’ and further in view of Damavandi et al. (US 9678920), hereinafter ‘Damavandi’.
Regarding Claim 1, Bojer discloses a radio frequency (RF) power sensor having an ability to determine its measurement uncertainty (Para [0085] compares signal detected by detector 200 along a transmission path; Para [0083] autocalibration circuit receive signals from the detector 200 to perform diagnostics or calibration activities; Para [0089] circuitry receives radio frequency signals via antennas; Para [0027-0028, 0082]) and operating condition of said power sensor (Para [0082] Armed with the power detector described above, it is also possible to have a self-calibration circuit that may assist designers in verifying operation and performing tests on the transmission chain. Such ability may reduce the time to test and/or free testing equipment for other uses).
Bojer fails to explicitly disclose a measurement through continuous monitoring of an environmental condition of said RF power sensor using an environmental sensor.
Damavandi teaches a self-calibrating power detector including a radio frequency transceiver (Col. 8, Lines 33-38, Col. 3, lines 22-25) that uses a model of said power sensor to adjust its own calibration by applying at least one calibration offset, based on correlations between a power measurement of said power sensor and at least one of an environmental condition of said power sensor and an operating condition of said power sensor (Col. 4, Lines 58-Col. 5 Lines 23 self-calibration module 305 performs a self-calibration (automatic calibration) routine of the PD offset; The module 305 tracks and compensates the PD offset variations across all conditions that affect the transmitter and/or transceiver chip to include, for example, temperature variations in the environment (e.g., phone package), battery voltage levels to a device with the transceiver chip 2-110, frequency variations, and/or other conditions) for the benefit of reducing factory calibration time and allows the removal of complex PD offset calibration routines.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the power sensor to continuously monitor an environmental condition of said RF power sensor using an environmental sensor and an operating condition of said RF power sensor using an operating condition sensor for the benefit of reducing factory calibration time and allows the removal of complex PD offset calibration routines as taught by Damavandi in Col. 8, Lines 33-38, Col. 4, Lines 58-Col. 5 Lines 23.
Regarding Claim 2, Bojer in view of Damavandi further discloses transmission line of said power sensor wherein said environmental condition includes at least one or more of temperature, humidity, shock, orientation, and/or vibration (Damavandi Col. 4, Lines 58-Col. 5 Lines 23 The module 305 tracks and compensates the PD offset variations across all conditions that affect the transmitter and/or transceiver chip to include, for example, temperature variations); and said operating conditions includes at least one or more of a total time said RF power sensor has received external power, a total time a power has been present on a transmission line of said RF power sensor, a peak amplitude of said power on said transmission line, an average amplitude of said power on said transmission line (Damavandi Col. 9, Lines 55-62 a linear envelope detector that detects a time varying envelope that is transmitted as the RF signal from the antenna 3-145 (FIG. 3). The PD offset is performed by calculating the average value 309b of the detector codes 309a as read by the module 305; detects time varying envelope interpreted as boundary within which the signal ranges with an outline of a signals amplitude variation over time), a frequency of said power on said transmission line (Col. 5, Lines 9-16 frequency variations), and/or a number of times a connector of said transmission line has been mated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 7, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein an on- board power source that permits said continuous monitoring when an off-board power source is not available” in combination with all other limitations of the claim and base claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858