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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application KR10-2019-0049758. However, the priority claim to the prior-filed foreign application is not perfected according to rule 37 C.F.R. 1.55(f)(1) for the reason set forth in Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant mailed on 10/04/2022. The certified copy of the foreign application filed on 11/10/2022 was not filed within the four months from the actual filing date of the application or the sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application as required in 37 C.F.R. 1.55(f)(1). See 37 CFR 1.55(f)(3) for the requirements of a petition to restore the right of priority.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 “band limited S-parameter” should be “band-limited S-parameter” as antecedently recited.
Claim 1 line 6 "the S-parameter" should be "the band-limited S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
Claim 1 line 11 "IFT" should be "inverse Fourier transform (IFT)” to clearly recite what IFT stands for.
Claim 1 line 12-13 "the imaginary part of the derived band-extended S-parameter" should be "the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
Claim 1 line 14 “time response of the passive network” should be “the time response of the passive network” as antecedently recited.
Claim 2 line 6 "the frequency band" should be "a frequency band" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
Claim 2 line 8-9; claim 3 line 4-8 "the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter" should be "the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
Claim 2 line 10-11; claim 3 line 15 “by performing Hilbert transform” should be “by performing the Hilbert transform” as antecedently recited.
Claim 2 line 13-14 "the real part of the restored S-parameter" should be "the real part of the band-extended S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
Claim 2 line 14-15; claim 4 line 4-6; claim 5 line 4; claim 6 line 4 "the S-parameter" should be "the band-limited S-parameter".
Claim 2 line 17 "an impulse response" should be "the impulse response" as antecedently recited in claim 1.
claim 2 line 18 “by performing IFT” should be “by performing the IFT” as antecedently recited.
Claim 3 line 9; claim 5 line 5 "the measurement band" should be "a measurement band" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
Claim 4 line 13-14 “the maximum period” should be “the predetermined maximum period” as antecedently recited.
Claim 5 line 6 "the interpolation function value" should be "an interpolation function value" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
Claim 5 line 11 "the imaginary number of the interpolation function" should be "an imaginary number of the interpolation function" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
Claim 5 line 12; claim 6 line 8 and 16 "the imaginary number of the S-parameter" should be "the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter" as antecedently recited.
Claim 5 line 13; claim 6 line 9 and 16 "delay time" should be "the propagation delay time" as antecedently recited.
Claim 5 line 13; claim 6 line 9 "the S-parameter value" should be "S-parameter value" because there is lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 6 line 6 "the extrapolation function value" should be "an extrapolation function value" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
Claim 6 line 7 "the imaginary number of the extrapolation function" should be "an imaginary number of the extrapolation function" because there is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation.
Claim 6 line 7-8 "the extended high-frequency band" should be "an extended high-frequency band".
Dependent claims are also objected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an interpolator” in claim 1. Specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed. Figure 5 of parent application illustrates step by step algorithm to remove a propagation delay time and deriving an imaginary part of the S-parameter Hm_zd(f) by multiplying Hm(f) function and
e
j
2
ρ
π
f
τ
e
s
t
and page 11 of parent application describes an equations 10-11 that performs add interpolation function and extrapolation function to the imaginary part and perform Hilbert transform to restore the real part of the band-extended S parameter, where equation 10 describes the Hilbert transform operation. However, the specification fail to describe structure or step by step algorithm to perform IFT to derive an impulse response. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or act to perform the entire claimed function.
“an analysis device” in claim 1. Figure 2 illustrates the analyzer 4 as a “black box” without sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and the specification also fails to describe a step by step algorithm to perform the claimed function. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or act to perform the claimed function.
“a pre-processing unit” in claim 2. Figure 5 of parent application illustrates step by step algorithm to remove a propagation delay time and deriving an imaginary part of the S-parameter Hm_zd(f) by multiplying Hm(f) function and
e
j
2
ρ
π
f
τ
e
s
t
. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a band extension unit” in claim 2. Page 11 of parent application describes equation 11 to add Hxel(f) and Hxeh(f) to Hxm(f) and perform Hilbert transform as described in equation 10, and specification of instant application on page 21-23 describes equation 3-5 for deriving coefficients by applying LSE technique as expressed in equations 4-5. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a post-processing unit” in claim 2. Figure 5 merely illustrates the post-processing unit as a “black box” without sufficient structure to perform the claimed function and the specification fails to describe step by step algorithm to perform the IFT operation.
“an interpolation function generation module” in claim 3. Figure 6 of parent application illustrates flowchart to generate low frequency band interpolation function, and see equation 16 on page 20 of the parent specification that describes the equation to generate the interpolation function. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“an extrapolation function generating module” in claim 3. Figure 7 of parent application illustrates flowchart to generate high frequency band extrapolation function, and see equation 18 on page 22 of the parent specification that describes the equation to generate the extrapolation function. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a frequency extension module” in claim 3. Page 11 of parent application describes equation 11 to add the interpolation function Hxel and the extrapolation function Hxeh to the imaginary part of the S-parameter Hxm. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a restoration module” in claim 3. Page 11 of parent application describes equation 11 that performs Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter to restore the real part and the Hilbert transform is further described in equation 10. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a coefficient derivation module” in claim 3. Specification of instant application on page 21-23 describes equation 3-5 for deriving coefficients by applying LSE technique as expressed in equations 4-5. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a final band extension module” in claim 3. Figure 4 of parent application illustrates the final band extension Hxe is output and figure 5 of parent application illustrates Q100 to compare the difference between real part of band-extended and band-limited to a predetermined reference value, such as the equation 3 of specification of parent application page 11. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a remove module” in claim 4. Figure 5 of parent application illustrates step by step algorithm to remove a propagation delay time and deriving an imaginary part of the S-parameter Hm_zd(f) by multiplying Hm(f) function and
e
j
2
ρ
π
f
τ
e
s
t
. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a band extension error derivation module” in claim 4. Specification of parent application page 11-12 describes equations 3 and 4 that derive a band extension error by calculating NMSE with difference between real part of band-extended and band-limited. Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
“a propagation delay time update module” in claim 4. Specification of parent application page 11-12 describes equations 3 and 4 reduces the period to a given period when the band extension error calculated in equation 3 is greater than the reference value. . Thus, the specification describes sufficient step by step algorithm to generate interpolation, and specification of parent application page 6 describes the measures and process the S-parameter maybe performed by a processor or a medium on which program is stored and executed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Claims 1-2 recite “an interpolator”, “an analysis device”, and “a post-processing unit” that invoke 112(f) interpretation. However, specification fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function of deriving an impulse response by performing IFT and analyze an output voltage waveform by performing convolution on the impulse response and an input voltage waveform. Figures 2 and 5 of instant application merely illustrate the interpolator 3, analyzer 4, and post-processing unit 35 as “black boxes” without sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and specification page 2-3, 10-11 merely repeats the claim language by reciting the step of performing IFT and convolution without providing sufficient step by step algorithm to perform such operations. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide sufficient structure, material, or act to perform the claimed function as required under 112(f) interpretation.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6 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.
Claims 1-2 recite “an interpolator”, “an analysis device”, and “a post-processing unit”, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Figures 2 and 5 of instant application merely illustrate the interpolator 3, analyzer 4, and post-processing unit 35 as “black boxes” without sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and specification page 2-3, 10-11 merely repeats the claim language by reciting the step of performing IFT and convolution without providing sufficient step by step algorithm to perform such operations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 line 18 recites "outputting an impulse response by performing IFT on the derived band-extended S-parameter". It is unclear whether "the derived band-extended S-parameter" is referring to the real part of the band-extended S-parameter or the imaginary part of the derived band-extended S-parameter as recited in claim 1 line 11-13 or “the final band-extended S-parameter” generated by the band extension unit. For examination purposes, examiner interprets such limitations as “the final band-extended S-parameter” generated by the band extension unit.
claim 4 line 17 recites “the predetermined reference value”. it is unclear whether the “predetermined reference value” is referring to the predetermined reference value recited in claim 3 line 27 or the predetermined reference value recited in claim 1 line 22. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as the predetermined reference value recited in claim 3 line 27.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system for analyzing passive network
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula such as analyze time response with a band-limited S-parameter of (see at least page 14 describes that analyze the time response of the passive network is done by performing convolution of the impulse response and input voltage waveform of the passive network, wherein convolution operation is a mathematical operation); removing a propagation delay time from the band limited S-parameter, deriving an imaginary part of the S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed (see at least figure 5 of parent application that illustrates the mathematical algorithm to remove delay time and derive an imaginary part, specification of parent application page 10-11 describes the propagation delay time is removed by performing mathematical equation 2, which is to multiply the Hm(f) and e
e
j
2
π
f
τ
e
s
t
to derive Hm_zd(f)), adding an interpolation function of a low frequency band and an extrapolation function of a high frequency band to the derived imaginary part to derive an imaginary part of a band-extended S-parameter (see at least specification of parent application page 17 or figure 4 of instant application describes equation 17 that perform adding Hxel(f) [i.e., an interpolation function of a low frequency band] and Hxeh(f) [i.e., an extrapolation function of a high frequency band] to derive Hxe(f) [i.e., an imaginary part of a band-extended S-parameter]), deriving an impulse response by performing IFT after restoring a real part of the band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the derived band-extended S-parameter ( inverse Fourier transform and Hilbert transform are mathematical operations, see at least equation 1 of page 14 of instant specification or equation 10-11 page 17 of parent application); and analyzing time response of the passive network by analyzing an output voltage waveform of the passive network estimated by performing convolution on the impulse response and an input voltage waveform of the passive network (such step of analyzing is performed by the convolution operation of the impulse response and input voltage waveform, wherein convolution operation is a mathematical operation, see at least page 24 of instant specification. Thus, the step of analyzing is performing mathematical operation), adjust the propagation delay time according to a comparison result of a difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and a real part of the band-limited S-parameter with a predetermined reference value (adjust the propagation delay time according to a comparison result is also a mathematical operation, see at least page 11-12 of parent application describes equation 3 for performing the comparison operation and adjust propagation delay time as illustrated in figure 5 step Q100 and S140 of parent application). Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a system comprising a passive network, an instrument, an interpolator, an analysis device. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as computer components performing computer function of measuring and processing data, wherein page 11 of specification describes the passive network is provided with a semiconductor package or a printed circuit board including various components and output of the passive network is measured by the instrument. Thus, at most the passive network and instrument are merely recited as tools to obtain data to perform the mathematical algorithms for analyzing. Alternatively, the step of measuring S-parameter of a network using instrument is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data gather and well-known). Furthermore, the interpolator and the analysis device invoked 112(f) and as explained above, specification of parent application describes on page 6 are merely processor executing program or instructions to perform mathematical operations. Therefore; such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer elements (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements in the claim amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. The same conclusion is reached in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic element cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. The step of measuring S-parameter of a network using instrument considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see at least Schmitt, Former Director of Electrical Engineering, Sensor Research and Development Corp. Orono. Electromagnetics Explained: A Handbook for Wireless/ RF, EMC, and High-Speed Electronics, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2002, page 223-224 describes the vector network analyzer (VNA) [i.e., the instrument] is the most commonly used instrument, wherein VNA is an instrument that measure both the amplitude and phase of the S-parameter of 1-port and 2-port devices). Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites the interpolator comprises: a pre-processing unit that removes the propagation delay time from the band-limited S-parameter and then derives the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter from the band-limited S- parameter; a band extension unit extending the frequency band by adding the interpolation function of the low frequency band and the extrapolation function of the high frequency band to the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter, restoring the real part of the band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter, and deriving coefficients of the interpolation function and the extrapolation function by using the difference between the real part of the restored S-parameter and the real part of the S- parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed, to output a final band-extended S-parameter; and a post-processing unit outputting an impulse response by performing IFT on the derived band-extended S-parameter. As explained above, the step removing the propagation delay time, deriving the imaginary part of the S-parameter, extending the frequency band by adding, restoring the real part of band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform, deriving coefficients of the interpolation and the extrapolation function, output a final band-extended S-parameter, and outputting an impulse response by performing IFT, cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least figure 5 of parent application, page 10 equation 2, page 17-19 equations 10-15 and other citation described in rejected claim 1). The claim further recites additional elements, such as a pre-processing unit, a band-extension unit, a post-processing unit, but such limitations are recited at a high level of generality and invoke 112(f) interpretation, which describes in specification of parent application page 6 as processor executing program to perform mathematical operations, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to computer components. Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites generating the interpolation function of the low frequency band in the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter (see at least page 20 of parent application describes equation 20 to generate the interpolation function Hxel(f)); generating the extrapolation function of the high frequency band in the imaginary part of the derived band-limited S-parameter (see at least page 22 of parent application describes equation 18 to generate the interpolation function Hxeh(f); extending the measurement band to derive the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter by adding the interpolation function of the low frequency band and the extrapolation function of the high frequency band to the imaginary part of the band-limited S-parameter (see at least figure 4 of instant application illustrates equation that add Hxel and Hxeh and Hxm to extend the measurement band); a restoration module restoring the real part of the band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the band-extended S-parameter (see at page 17 of parent application describes equations 10-11 for performing Hilbert transform); applying an LSE (least square error) technique that minimizes the difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed, to derive the coefficients of the interpolation function and the extrapolation function (see at least page 19 of parent application describes the step of applying LSE technique, which is a mathematical algorithm, to derive coefficients of interpolation function and extrapolation function, minimizing the different between real part of band-extended and band-limited S-parameter is merely recited as a result of performing the abstract idea); and outputting the final band- extended S-parameter when the difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed is not greater than a predetermined reference value (see at least page 11 of parent application that describes equation 3 performs the comparison and step Q100 to determine to output result or adjust delay time). The claim further recites additional elements, such as an interpolation function generation module, an extrapolation function generating module, a frequency extension module, a restoration module, a coefficient derivation module, and a final band extension module. However, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoke 112(f) interpretation, which describes in specification of parent application page 6 as processor executing program to perform mathematical operations, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to computer components. Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites removing the propagation delay time of a predetermined maximum period from the S-parameter in which the measurement band is limited, and deriving the imaginary part of the S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed (see at least figure 5 and page 10 pf parent application describes equation 2 that removes propagation delay time and deriving the imaginary part of the S-parameter) ; deriving a band extension error by calculating an NMSE (Normalized Mean Square Error) with the difference between the real part of the band- extended S-parameter of the coefficient derivation module and the real part of the band-limited S-parameter from which the propagation delay time is removed (see at least page 11 of parent application describes equation 3 to calculate band extension error); and reducing the maximum period of the propagation delay time to a given period when the calculated band extension error is greater than the predetermined reference value (see at least page 11-13 and figure 5 of parent application describes the step of adjusting propagation delay time when the band extension error is greater than the NMSE). The claim further recites a remove module, a band extension error derivation module, and a propagation delay time update module. However, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoke 112(f) interpretation, which describes in specification of parent application page 6 as processor executing program to perform mathematical operations, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to computer components. Moreover, the claim recites the step of transmitting the propagation delay time of the reduced period to the removal module, but such limitation is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two (e.g., mere data gathering) and determined to be well-understood, routine and convention activity under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites the interpolation function is provided to be set as a polynomial in a form of an odd function having only odd terms in the imaginary part of the S-parameter in which the measurement band is limited, to allow the interpolation function value to be zero at 0 Hz with extended low frequency in order to have a frequency response characteristic in the interpolation function in the polynomial in the form of the odd function having only odd terms, and to allow the interpolation function value at a frequency where the imaginary number of the interpolation function of the low frequency band meets the imaginary number of the S-parameter from which the delay time is removed and the S-parameter value to be equal to each other, and differential values thereof to be equal to each other. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describing the interpolation function Hxel(f), see at least page 15-16 mathematical equations 8-9 of the parent application and figure 4 of the instant application). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites the extrapolation function is provided to be set as a polynomial in a form of an odd function having only odd terms in the imaginary part of the S-parameter in which the measurement band is limited, to allow the extrapolation function value at a frequency where the imaginary number of the extrapolation function of the extended high-frequency band meets the imaginary number of the S-parameter from which the delay time is removed and the S-parameter value to be equal to each other, in order to have a frequency response characteristic in the interpolation function of the polynomial in the form of the odd function having only the odd terms, to allow differential values of the extrapolation function value at the frequency where the imaginary number of the extrapolation function of the extended high-frequency band meets the imaginary number of the S-parameter from which the delay time is removed and the S-parameter value to be equal to each other, and to set an end-point frequency of the extended high-frequency band to a predetermined maximum frequency. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describing the interpolation function Hxeh(f), see at least page 21-22 mathematical equations 17-18 of the parent application and figure 4 of the instant application). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination of limitations, including the steps of adding an interpolation function of a low frequency band and an extrapolation function of a high frequency band to the derived imaginary part to derive an imaginary part of a band-extended S-parameter, deriving an impulse response by performing IFT after restoring a real part of the band-extended S-parameter by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the derived band-extended S-parameter; and analyze time response of the passive network by analyzing an output voltage waveform of the passive network estimated by performing convolution on the impulse response and an input voltage waveform of the passive network, and adjust the propagation delay time according to a comparison result of a difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and a real part of the band-limited S-parameter with a predetermined reference value.
Rao – US 20080281893 teaches a method for extending the original limited band s-parameter to generate an extended band frequency s-parameter as illustrated in figure 1a, wherein the method also teaches the step to remove propagation delay time from band-limited s-parameter by applying equation 6 [0020], Rao [0015] teaches the real part u is extended continuously from the cut-off frequency and calculate [0016] imaginary part v and compare with the original imaginary part from 0 to fmax, and perform IFFT on the optimal extrapolation curve as illustrated in figure 2. However, Rao does not teach or suggest the extension of interpolation function of a low frequency band to derive imaginary part of band-expanded S-parameter or deriving an impulse response by performing IFT after restoring real part by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the extended-band S-parameter, perform convolution on the impulse response and input voltage to analyze time response and adjust the propagation delay time according to a comparison result of a difference between real part of band-extended and real part of band-limited with a predetermined reference value.
Triverio – NPL Robust Causality Characterization via Generalized Dispersion Relations – teaches a technique for causality constrained interpolation that performs interpolation to recover a sound estimate of a system response at missing low frequency samples, such as reconstructing the missing frequency data for |w| < "min" as described in section VI. Furthermore, Section VI Theoretical Derivation, in the second stage, the missing portion of the real part is reconstructed using generalized dispersion relations). However, Triverio does not teach or suggest the extension of extrapolation function of a high frequency band to derive imaginary part of band-expanded S-parameter or deriving an impulse response by performing IFT after restoring real part by performing Hilbert transform on the imaginary part of the extended-band S-parameter, perform convolution on the impulse response and input voltage to analyze time response and adjust the propagation delay time according to a comparison result of a difference between real part of band-extended and real part of band-limited with a predetermined reference value.
Cho – NPL An Efficient Extrapolation Method of Band-Limited S-Parameter for Extracting Causal Impulse Responses – teaches a method to perform extrapolation of the band limited s parameter, wherein the propagation delay time from the band-limited is removed and the band-extended S parameter is used in transient analysis. However, Cho does not teach or suggest the step of the interpolation of the band limited s parameter of a low frequency band to derive imaginary band-extended S-parameter and adjust propagation delay time according to comparison result of difference between the real part of the band-extended S-parameter and a real part of the band-limited S-parameter with a predetermined reference value.
Tsiklauri – NPL Discrete Hilbert Transform Based Delay Causality Enforcement for Network Parameters – teaches a method to extract front delay or propagation delay in section III Front Delay Extraction, method 3 describes equation that is equivalent to multiplying the transfer function by
e
-
j
w
t
. However, Tsiklauri does not teach or suggest the step of extending frequency band by adding interpolation function of low frequency and extrapolation function of high frequency to generate the extended band frequency S-parameter, and the step of adjusting the propagation delay time as required.
Reginelli – NPL Interpolation and Extrapolation of S-parameter data of a Microwave Filter in the Frequency Domain Using the Cauchy Method – teaches a method to perform interpolation and extrapolation of complex s parameter using Cauchy method, wherein figure 1 page 332 describes the frequency having low frequency band 1.0 MHz to 75 MHz and high frequency band 200MHz to 300MHz to generate an extended-band. However, Reginelli does not teach or suggest the step of removing propagation delay time, deriving an impulse response and analyze the time response by performing convolution operation and adjust propagation delay time according to a comparison result as required in the claim.
Therefore, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests the combination of limitations as required in claim 1. Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112(a), and 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182