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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/22/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 05/31/24 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 and 16-17 were deemed to be related to the elected species and generic to both species. Claim 15 is herein withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-14 and 16-17 will herein be examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 16-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings
As previously discussed, the drawings filed on 01/03/22 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - Double Patenting
35 U.S.C. 121 prohibits an NSDP rejection of a claim(s) in a divisional application if its filing resulted from a restriction requirement between two or more “independent and distinct” inventions and consonance is maintained between the originally restricted inventions in the divisional application. This application is a division of application No. 14/880589, filed on Oct. 12, 2015, now Pat. No. 11,215,655. It is consonant with the unelected group corresponding to figure 3 in the 08/22/18 response to Restriction/Election filed on 08/22/18 in the ‘589 application. Therefore, no double patenting rejection is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
After further consideration of the current state of 35 USC 101 analysis and the applicant’s disclosure, the following 35 USC § 101 rejection is necessitated.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for correction of transmission line induced errors, which is a method. Claims 2-14 and 16-17 depend on claim 1. As such, claims 1-14 and 16-17 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
transforming the frequency dependent reflection data of the SUT to corresponding time domain reflection data of the SUT (This action appears to be performed by an Fourier/inverse Fourier Transform (see paragraphs 0025 and 0031 of the applicant’s original specification), which is a specific mathematical calculation. It therefore recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
identifying a time location of a reflection from the measurement fixture based on the time domain reflection data of the SUT (Paragraph 0025 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The measurement data can be transformed from the frequency domain into the time domain via a Fourier transform at 306, and the time domain information can be used to identify the time locations for the measurement fixture 109 and the SUT 112 (FIG. 1). This is partially illustrated in FIG. 2, where the time domain calibration measurement of a known reference material.” Figure 2 shows a simple graph that illustrates reflection responses. Reading a simple graph to identify such reflection responses is an abstract observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
determining a SUT-reference time delay between the time location of the reflection from the measurement fixture in the time domain reflection data of the SUT and a time location of a reflection from the measurement fixture in time domain reflection data of a reflection reference (Paragraph 0028 of the applicant’s original specification states, “At 312, the time delay differences between the calibration and SUT is determined and converted to equivalent frequency-domain phase shifts. For example, the time delay and/or phase error imposed by environmental effects or motion of a cable can be determined by iterative fitting or by calculation of the relevant phase slopes.” (emphasis mine). Here, the time delay determination explicitly recites specific mathematical calculations. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.)
applying a phase shift correction to the frequency dependent reflection data of the SUT to generate corrected SUT reflection data, the phase shift correction based upon the SUT-reference time delay (Paragraph 0030 of the applicant’s original specification states, “Referring back to FIG. 3, phase shift correction can be applied to calibration and/or SUT data at 315 … This operation can be carried out in either the time domain or the frequency domain as they are mathematically equivalent. In the frequency domain, the phase correction can be applied by multiplying the signal-to-be-corrected, S, with the exponential function of radial frequency (ɯ) times the time delay (t), which is multiplied by the square root of negative one, or …” The disclosure then explicitly recites formula (1). This limitation therefore is specifically performed by explicit mathematical calculations, formulas, and/or equations. It recites an abstract mathematical concept.)
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-17 depend on independent claim 1 and also recite its abstract limitations, by virtue of their dependence.
In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 2 discloses determining a calibrated SUT response. Paragraph 0030 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The calibrated SUT response, S-calibrated, can be calculated …” The operation is performed by a specific mathematical calculation. The limitation therefore recites an abstract mathematical concept.
Claim 5 discloses transforming the frequency dependent reflection data … identifying the time location of the reflection … These limitations recite abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes for similar reasons as those given with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 6 discloses determining a calibration time delay … applying a phase shift correction … These limitations recite abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes for similar reasons as those given with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 7 discloses transforming the frequency dependent reflection data … identifying the time location of the reflection … These limitations recite abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes for similar reasons as those given with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 8 discloses determining a calibrated SUT response. As discussed above, with respect to claim 2, the applicant’s original specification discloses such an operation as being performed by specific mathematical calculations.
Claim 10 discloses transforming the frequency dependent reflection data. This limitation is performed by a Fourier/inverse Fourier Transform, which as established above, is a specific mathematical calculation. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.
Claim 13 discloses that the SUT-reference time delay is determined by iterative fitting. Iterative fitting is a specific mathematical calculation. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.
Claim 16 discloses that the phase shift correction comprises an amplitude correction. Paragraph 0035 of the applicant’s original specification states, “When the disclosed correction method is used, the phase and/or amplitude correction can be applied at each vector subtraction step. In other words, the isolation measurement is vector subtracted from the corrected specimen under test data, and the isolation measurement is also vector subtracted …” The applicant’s disclosure further discloses these mathematical calculations in the context of specific equation (3). The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts.
Claim 17 discloses transforming the frequency dependent reflection data, which recites abstract mathematical concepts for the reasons discussed above relating to Fourier/Inverse Fourier transforms.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
A method for correction of transmission line induced errors (The intended use in the preamble of “for correction of transmission line induced errors” is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).)
collecting frequency dependent reflection data of a specimen under test (SUT) via a transmission line coupled to a measurement fixture (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because collection of data for mathematical data processing merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Also, the mention of “specimen under test,” “transmission line,” and “measurement fixture” are broadly recited and merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Furthermore, it would appear that the processing of the collected data is performed by computers (see, for example, paragraphs 0019, 0040, 0047, and 0049 of the applicant’s original specification). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-17 depend on independent claim 1 and also recite its limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application, by virtue of their dependence.
In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses that the reflection reference is free space without a calibration standard or SUT. This is a well-established and well-known reference in the time-domain reflectometry art. Its presence in the claims merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4 discloses that the reflection reference is a calibration standard. This is a broad and generic statement that gives no details about the nature of the reflection reference or the calibration standard. Its presence in the claims merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 5, 7, and 10 disclose collecting frequency dependent reflection data. As discussed above, collecting data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 9 discloses that the calibrated SUT response is further based upon isolation reflection data collected via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture. This limitation merely provides technological context for the data that is mathematically processed. It merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11 discloses that the frequency dependent reflection data is collected at a plurality of excitation frequencies within a predefined range of frequencies. This limitation appears to describe the typical function of a conventional microwave network analyzer. No details are given as to any specific collection approach or frequency ranges. The limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 12 discloses that a network analyzer sequentially provides each of the plurality of excitation frequencies in a stepwise fashion and collects the frequency dependent reflection data at each of the plurality of excitation frequencies via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture. This limitation appears to describe a typical function of a conventional microwave network analyzer. The claims, as a whole, do not appear to be directed to a specific network analyzer as the “solution” but rather to a specific method of processing data received from a conventional network analyzer. As such, the limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the disclosure of the network analyzer can be construed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 14 discloses that the transmission line comprises a coaxial cable, a stripline, a waveguide, a microstrip, or a coplanar line. Here, generic structural elements are generally recited. They merely serve to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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) 1-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al (US Pat 5524281) in view of Nilsson et al (US PgPub 20080105048).
With respect to claim 1, Bradley et al discloses:
A method for correction of transmission line induced errors (column 33, lines 10-31 states, “Since we can measure microwave signals in both magnitude and phase, it is possible to correct for six major error terms … To accomplish this error correction, we measure the magnitude and phase of each error signal … Magnitude and phase information appear as a vector that is mathematically applied to the measurement signal. This process is termed vector error correction.” The concept of “correction” is further disclosed throughout the disclosure of Bradley, such as in figure 48; column 7, lines 40-42; column 9, lines 5-7; column 14, lines 63-67; and column 16, lines 22-27.)
collecting frequency dependent reflection data of a specimen under test (SUT) via a transmission line coupled to a measurement fixture (figures 1 and 34-35; column 1, lines 53-56 state, “The present invention provides a measurement system. The system includes a source of signals at discrete microwave frequencies in a prescribed microwave frequency range.”; column 4, lines 30-51 state, “there is shown a first block diagram illustrating the measurement system 100 … The system generates stimulus signals over a range of individual frequencies. For each frequency, a stimulus signal is applied to a Device Under Test (DUT) 102 … For each stimulus signal frequency, the system produces digital logic level signals carrying phase and magnitude information which characterize the DUT 102 … The digital logic level signals are provided to digital processing circuitry 190 which, in addition to processing the digital logic level signals and producing a display, controls the signal source via signals on GPIB 265.”; Please also note “Vector Network Analyzer Basics” section disclosed in column 30.)
transforming the frequency dependent reflection data of the SUT to corresponding time domain reflection data of the SUT (column 69, lines 42-59 state, “The Option 360-2 Time Domain feature for the WILTRON 360 analyzer is a useful measurement tool for determining the location of impedance discontinuities. Some typical applications are identifying and analyzing circuit elements, isolating and analyzing a desired response, locating faults in cables, and measuring antennas. The relationship between the frequency-domain response and the time-domain response of a network is described mathematically by the Fourier transform. The 360 makes measurements in the frequency domain then calculates the inverse Fourier transform to give the time-domain response. The time-domain response is displayed as a function of time …”)
identifying a time location of a reflection from the measurement fixture based on the time domain reflection data of the SUT (figures 66-67 show magnitude vs time charts; column 5, lines 62-63 state, “and a reflected signal is provided on line 116 …”; column 29, lines 49-53 state, “It will be appreciated that the measurement device identified by reference numeral 560 can be an analyzer such as that disclosed in the system 100. Alternatively, for example, it can be an amplitude detector, a log magnitude detector, a synchronous detector, a log magnitude detector, a synchronous detector, an oscilloscope, a modulation meter or some other measurement device.”)
With respect to claim 1, Bradley et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
determining a SUT-reference time delay between the time location of the reflection from the measurement fixture in the time domain reflection data of the SUT and a time location of a reflection from the measurement fixture in time domain reflection data of a reflection reference (Column 67, lines 42-43 of Bradley et al state, “A wide aperture results in a loss of fine-grain variations but gives more sensitivity in the measurement of time delay.” That is the only instance of “time delay” that the examiner found in Bradley. Many instances of “group delay” were found, including in figures 66-68; column 3, lines 50-51; column 32, line 66 – column 33, line 5; and column 52, line 29. However, since it is not readily apparent whether group delay is equivalent to time delay, a secondary reference will be cited.)
applying a phase shift correction to the frequency dependent reflection data of the SUT to generate corrected SUT reflection data, the phase shift correction based upon the SUT-reference time delay
With respect to claim 1, Nilsson et al discloses:
determining a SUT-reference time delay between the time location of the reflection from the measurement fixture in the time domain reflection data of the SUT and a time location of a reflection from the measurement fixture in time domain reflection data of a reflection reference (paragraph 0003 states, “On the receiver side, a reflection from the interior of the tank is received, and a low frequency analogue tank signal is formed and then digitized to form a digital time domain reflectometry (TDR) signal. The location of a surface echo is determined by identifying peaks in this TDR-signal using amplitude detection.”; abstract states, “A method for determining a process variable of a product in a tank based on a time delay of electromagnetic waves … determining a relative time period between a reference time corresponding to the predefined reference and a beginning of the time window … determining a relative phase shift of the spectrum and using the relative phase shift to calculate a corresponding time shift, and determining the time delay by adding the relative time period and the time shift.”)
applying a phase shift correction to the frequency dependent reflection data of the SUT to generate corrected SUT reflection data, the phase shift correction based upon the SUT-reference time delay (obvious in view of combination; Nilsson et al discloses phase shift in the context of time delay. Bradley discloses various forms of correction. For example, column 7, lines 40-42 state, “a correction signal is used to remove any phase drift in the stimulus signal frequency.” Column 14, lines 63-67 state, “The phase detector 278 provides phase correction signals …”; Phase correction signals are further disclosed in column 15, line 55 and column 16, lines 22-27 of Bradley. Also, as discussed above, column 33 discloses various forms of measurement error correction that takes into account both magnitude and phase.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nilsson et al into the invention of Bradley et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of identifying transmission line induced errors with high accuracy.
With respect to claim 2, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
further comprising determining a calibrated SUT response based at least in part upon the corrected SUT reflection data (Bradley column 7, lines 5-10 state, “The calibration signal is used to calibrate a gain ranging amplifier assembly, discussed below, and to calibrate the synchronous detectors 130 to compensate for phase and magnitude drift in the test and reference signals.”; see also Bradley column 17, lines 33-41 and calibration section e. in Bradley column 40, lines 49-56 (which includes “Correction Type”).)
With respect to claim 3, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the reflection reference is free space without a calibration standard or SUT (Bradley figure 36; Bradley column 3, lines 2-3 disclose “replacing a DUT with a length of transmission line”; Bradley discloses embodiments with both DUT present (figure 1, reference 102) and absent (figure 36). Embodiments without the DUT present can broadly be construed to anticipate the claimed “free space.”)
With respect to claim 4, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the reflection reference is a calibration standard (obvious in view of Bradley figure 71, which shows an “ideal device.”; Using an ideal device of “free space” (as discussed above) as a calibration standard would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the calibration amount is determined by the amount of offset or deviance from the responses in the ideal standard.)
With respect to claim 5, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
collecting frequency dependent reflection data of the reflection reference via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture (Bradley figures 1 and 43-44; Bradley column 5, lines 52-54 state, “Thus, information can be obtained about both the forward and reverse transmission and reflection of stimulus signals by the DUT 102.”)
transforming the frequency dependent reflection data of the reflection reference to the time domain reflection data of the reflection reference (see Fourier and Inverse Fourier teachings of Bradley in column 69, lines 42-59)
identifying the time location of the reflection from the measurement fixture based on the time domain reflection data of the reflection reference (Bradley figures 66-67 show magnitude vs time charts; column 5, lines 62-63 state, “and a reflected signal is provided on line 116 …”; column 29, lines 49-53 state, “It will be appreciated that the measurement device identified by reference numeral 560 can be an analyzer such as that disclosed in the system 100. Alternatively, for example, it can be an amplitude detector, a log magnitude detector, a synchronous detector, a log magnitude detector, a synchronous detector, an oscilloscope, a modulation meter or some other measurement device.”)
With respect to claim 6, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
determining a calibration time delay between a time location of a reflection from the measurement fixture in time domain reflection data of a calibration standard and the time location of the reflection from the measurement fixture in the time domain reflection data of the reflection reference (obvious in view of combination; As discussed in claim 1 above, Nilsson discloses time delay in the context of time domain reflectometry. Bradley discloses calibration and correction.)
applying a phase shift correction to the frequency dependent reflection data of the calibration standard to generate corrected calibration standard reflection data, the phase shift correction based upon the calibration time delay (obvious in view of combination; As discussed in claim 1 above, Nilsson discloses time delay in the context of time domain reflectometry. Bradley discloses calibration and correction.)
With respect to claim 7, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
collecting frequency dependent reflection data of the calibration standard via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture (Bradley figures 1 and 43-44; Bradley column 5, lines 52-54 state, “Thus, information can be obtained about both the forward and reverse transmission and reflection of stimulus signals by the DUT 102.”)
transforming the frequency dependent reflection data of the calibration standard to the time domain reflection data of the calibration standard (see Fourier and Inverse Fourier teachings of Bradley in column 69, lines 42-59)
identifying the time location of the reflection from the measurement fixture based on the time domain reflection data of the reference calibration standard (Bradley figures 66-67 show magnitude vs time charts; column 5, lines 62-63 state, “and a reflected signal is provided on line 116 …”; column 29, lines 49-53 state, “It will be appreciated that the measurement device identified by reference numeral 560 can be an analyzer such as that disclosed in the system 100. Alternatively, for example, it can be an amplitude detector, a log magnitude detector, a synchronous detector, a log magnitude detector, a synchronous detector, an oscilloscope, a modulation meter or some other measurement device.”)
With respect to claim 8, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
determining a calibrated SUT response based at least in part upon the corrected SUT reflection data and the corrected calibration standard reflection data (obvious in view of calibration and correction teachings of Bradley, as discussed above)
With respect to claim 9, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the calibrated SUT response is further based upon isolation reflection data collected via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture (Paragraph 0035 of the applicant’s original specification states, “All the data were calibrated using a ‘response and isolation’ methodology. The response measurement is of an ideal microwave reflector … while the isolation measurement is of no specimen (free space).” Bradley’s teachings of free space were addressed in claim 3 above.)
With respect to claim 10, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
collecting frequency dependent reflection data of free space without a calibration standard or SUT via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture (Bradley figure 36; Bradley column 3, lines 2-3 disclose “replacing a DUT with a length of transmission line”; Bradley discloses embodiments with both DUT present (figure 1, reference 102) and absent (figure 36). Embodiments without the DUT present can broadly be construed to anticipate the claimed “free space.”)
transforming the frequency dependent reflection data of free space to the isolation reflection data (See Fourier and Inverse Fourier teachings of Bradley et al, as discussed above.)
With respect to claim 11, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the frequency dependent reflection data is collected at a plurality of excitation frequencies within a predefined range of frequencies (Bradley abstract states, “and for providing respective signals at respective discrete frequencies in a prescribed microwave frequency range …”)
With respect to claim 12, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein a network analyzer sequentially provides each of the plurality of excitation frequencies in a stepwise fashion and collects the frequency dependent reflection data at each of the plurality of excitation frequencies via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture (Bradley figure 34; Bradley column 1, lines 30-36; column 7, lines 10-14; column 21, lines 19-32; column 24, lines 1-4)
With respect to claim 13, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the SUT-reference time delay is determined by iterative fitting of the time domain reflection data of the SUT and the time domain reflection data of the reflection reference (paragraph 0052 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The determination of the SUT-to-calibration time delay or phase change can be accomplished by iterative fitting or by calculation of the relevant phase slopes.” The examiner interprets teachings of calculating relevant phase slopes to anticipate the claimed limitation, as the applicant’s specification does not otherwise define “iterative fitting.” Nilsson paragraph 0030 states, “The relative phase shift can be determined by calculating two phase-frequency pairs each comprising the phase of the Fourier transform for a specific frequency, and determining a slope between these phase-frequency pairs. This provides an efficient way to determine the relative phase, saving processing power.” Please also note Bradley column 67, lines 21-25, which states, “Consequently, we must use mathematical calculations to derive the group delay from the phase slope.”)
With respect to claim 14, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the transmission line comprises a coaxial cable, a stripline, a waveguide, a microstrip, or a coplanar line (Bradley figure 72; Bradley column 26, lines 25-30 discloses coaxial cable. Column 11, lines 25-32 incorporate a reference entitled, “DIRECTIONAL COUPLER AND TERMINATION FOR STRIPLINE AND COAXIAL CONDUCTORS.” Column 68, lines 59-62 discloses “a structure such as microstrip, coplanar waveguide, or stripline.”)
With respect to claim 16, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the phase shift correction comprises an amplitude correction (column 17, lines 20-41 state, “Peak detector 400 monitors the peak amplitude of the signals output by the gain ranging amplifier assembly … In the calibration mode, the 83.33 kHz signal provided by the calibration oscillator 134 is used to calibrate the gain ranging amplifiers … The gain and phase shifts experienced by a signal propagated through the gain ranging amplifier assembly 177 due to gain settings of one and four are determined and stored in memory … The stored errors are used later to correct measurement data.”)
With respect to claim 17, Bradley et al, as modified, discloses:
collecting frequency dependent reflection data of the reflection reference via the transmission line coupled to the measurement fixture (Bradley figures 1 and 43-44; Bradley column 5, lines 52-54 state, “Thus, information can be obtained about both the forward and reverse transmission and reflection of stimulus signals by the DUT 102.”)
transforming the frequency dependent reflection data of the reflection reference to the time domain reflection data of the reflection reference (See Fourier and Inverse Fourier teachings of Bradley et al)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bowring et al (US PgPub 20110181300) discloses remote detection and measurement of objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 02/25/26