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 Amendments
The applicant has amended the claims as of 4/14/2026 to include the limitation,
“and substantially immediately after the operation has been completed, while the near- field radio receiver is still in an electromagnetic field generated by the external reading device, regulate the input voltage of the near-field radio receiver to a second input voltage value lower than the first input voltage value.”
The examiner notes that DE102016110012A1 to Leutgeb et al. has a wide range of scenarios in which voltage would be regulated downward including on a timer or if a circuit is being overloaded.
There are at least two notable scenarios where voltage might be lowered “substantially immediately” after an operation has been completed:
This could happen by chance. Coincidentally a voltage could be lowered shortly after a transaction.
This could be a simple energy saving measure. When a transaction has been successfully completed, it may be logical to go to a lower-power, rest mode. Lower power rest modes are extremely common, even ubiquitous, for electronic devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention that an apparatus switches to a lower voltage substantially immediately after a transaction under several scenarios.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016110012A1 to Leutgeb et al.
An English language machine translation is provided herewith.
Re claim 1 and 17:
Leutgeb et al. teaches an RFID with a range of functionality comparable to what is claimed. For instance, Leutgeb et al. teaches:
An RFID tag can switch from a first operating mode to a second operating mode which has a reduced voltage:
[0015] According to various embodiments, the circuit logic can be configured to control the shunt control circuit in such a way that in the second operating mode the first operating voltage provided by the antenna is reduced.
The RFID can switch to the second (lower voltage) mode using timer:
[0017] According to various embodiments, the circuit logic can be configured to control the shunt control circuit in such a way that in the second operating mode the first operating voltage is changed according to a predetermined timing.
The RFID tag can switch to second (reduced voltage) mode if circuit is being overloaded:
[0022] According to various embodiments, the second switching condition can be met if/when a predetermined temperature of the near-field communication circuit or an environment of the near-field communication circuit is reached or exceeded and/or if the first operating voltage reaches or exceeds a predetermined threshold.
The RFID tag can switch to second lower voltage mode if too much energy is being consumed.
[0023] A second switching condition could be, for example, that more energy is coupled in via the antenna than one or more components or parts of the near-field communication circuit require, and the energy storage device is fully charged, or at least some of the energy cannot be used to charge the energy storage device, for example due to the internal resistance of the energy storage device.
Thus, the second mode can be used after some period of time or after some limit is reached. This should typically allow an initial action or transaction to occur first.
The applicant has amended the claims as of 4/14/2026 to include the limitation,
“and substantially immediately after the operation has been completed, while the near- field radio receiver is still in an electromagnetic field generated by the external reading device, regulate the input voltage of the near-field radio receiver to a second input voltage value lower than the first input voltage value.”
The examiner notes that DE102016110012A1 to Leutgeb et al. has a wide range of scenarios in which voltage would be regulated downward including on a timer or if a circuit is being overloaded.
There are at least two notable scenarios where voltage might be lowered “substantially immediately” after an operation has been completed:
This could happen by chance. Coincidentally a voltage could be lowered shortly after a transaction.
This could be a simple energy saving measure. When a transaction has been successfully completed, it may be logical to go to a lower-power, rest mode. Lower power rest modes are extremely common, even ubiquitous, for electronic devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention that an apparatus switches to a lower voltage substantially immediately after a transaction under several scenarios.
Re claim 2:
At para 0002, it is clear that the system is used in payment systems, and so the operation would be a financial transaction in that scenario.
Re claim 9:
Leutgeb et al. teaches the use of a shunt in, for example, paragraphs 0004, 0005 and 0006.
Re claim 16:
See discussion re claim 1, above.
Claims 4, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20070018821).
Kang et al. teaches at para 0027:
“According to another embodiment of the present invention, a RFID device includes an antenna adapted and configured to transceiver a radio frequency signal from an external communication apparatus, an analog block adapted and configured to generate a first voltage in response to the radio frequency signal received from the antenna, a digital block adapted and configured to receive the first voltage from the analog block, transmit a response signal to the analog block and output a memory control signal, and a memory adapted and configured to generate a second voltage which is higher than the first voltage and access data in response to the memory control signal. The memory has a memory cell array area driven by the second voltage and an peripheral circuit area driven by the first voltage.”
Thus Kang et al. teaches that for certain operations an input voltage can be upregulated.
The language of ‘perform an operation’ based on some “criterion” is broad and vague and is met by Kang et al.
Re claim 19:
One motivation to increase a voltage in this scenario is to increase a power for better transmission, such as when there is greater noise in the vicinity of a transaction or barriers in the vicinity of a transaction terminal.
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.
Claims 3, 5-8, 1-15 and 17 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102016110012A1 to Leutgeb et al. and Kang et al. (US 20070018821) in view of each other.
Re claim 3:
As Leutgeb et al. shows, voltage from a receiver can be regulated downward in a range of circumstances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to regulate voltage as a matter of course for any situation or operation that requires or benefits from lower voltage. Voltage downregulation can be seen as an ordinary capability.
Re claims 5-8, 1-15 and 17:
As Leutgeb and Kang each show, voltage from a receiver can be regulated downward in a range of circumstances and can also be regulated upward.
In view of the teachings of Leutgeb and Kang taken together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as a matter of course for any situation or operation that requires or benefits from lower or higher voltage to adjust the voltage appropriately. Voltage downregulation or upregulation can be seen as an ordinary capabilities.
The claims vaguely refer to operations and sub-operations, and there can be a range of conventional circuit operations which can benefit from lower or higher voltages. Simply downregulating or upregulating a circuit cannot be seen as patentable absent something more.
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 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 DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 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, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (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 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights