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 Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 11/25/2025 Claims 17, 21, 24, 25, and 29 have been amended. Claims 20 and 28 have been canceled. Claims 33, 34, 35, and 36 are newly added. Claims 17-19, 21-27, and 29-26 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Specifically, paragraph 4 of Applicant’s Specification recites the hyperlink “https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.042315”.
Claim Objections
Claims 35 and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 35 and 36, line 4, each recite “a coded photon stream” which should be changed to --the coded photon stream--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 33-36 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.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “wherein the loss measurer comprises a distance measurer adapted to measure a distance between the transmitter and the receiver, and the controller is configured to measure said channel loss by measuring said distance” (emphasis added), however Applicant’s Disclosure fails to provide written support for “the loss measurer comprises a distance measure adapted to measure a distance between the transmitter and the receiver” and “the controller is configured to measure said channel loss by measuring said distance”. For example, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Applicant’s Specification detail a “loss measurer” but does not provide anything further regarding a “distance measurer”, or measuring distance”, as a part of the “loss measurer”. Similarly, several paragraphs of Applicant’s Specification outlines a controller (including numerous embodiments of the controller), but does not provide any further support for the “controller” being configured to measure a “channel loss by measuring said distance”.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “wherein the loss measurer comprises a clock and the controller is configured to receive signals from the clock and to measure said channel loss based on said signals” (emphasis added), however Applicant’s Disclosure fails to provide support for “the loss measurer comprises a clock” and “the controller … to measure said channel loss based on said signals”. Similar to claim 33, Applicant’s Specification at paragraphs 9 and 11 describe the “loss measurer”, but do not provide any further description supporting the “loss measurer” comprising a “clock”. In fact, paragraph 42 of Applicant’s Specification contradicts this limitation directly by stating, “… the controller 334, which typically includes a clock…”, which suggests the claimed “controller”, and not the “loss measurer”, comprises the recited “clock”. Further, nowhere does the Disclosure support the “controller” measuring “channel loss based on said [clock] signals”. Paragraph 42 merely implies that the “controller” vary attenuation based on the clock signals, but this does not support the measuring of “channel loss” via the controller.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “a distance measurer adapted to measure a distance between the transmitter and the receiver, and connected to the controller, wherein the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to increase the attenuation in response to an increase in the distance” (emphasis added), however Applicant’s Disclosure fails to provide support for “a distance measurer adapted to measure a distance between the transmitter and the receiver, and connected to the controller” and “the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to increase the attenuation in response to an increase in the distance”. Specifically, no where does the Disclosure directly disclose a “distance measurer” that is used to measure distance, let alone between a transmitter and a receiver, nor does the Disclosure discuss the connection of said “distance measurer” to a “controller”. Further, the Disclosure also does not discuss the “controller” controlling the “attenuator to increase the attenuation” directly responsive to “an increase in the distance”. Rather, the only time it appears the attenuation is to be increased is when channel loss is detected to increase. While paragraph 41 states that channel loss can vary “due to the variation in the ground station to satellite distance”, this infers that the channel loss itself is affected by the variation of distance, and does not support directly controlling an attenuator “to increase the attenuation in response to an increase in the distance”.
Claim 36 recites the limitations “wherein at least one of the transmitter and the receiver is adapted to move so that a distance between them increases and decreases as a function of time, and the controller is adapted to receive signals from the clock and to control the attenuator in response to said signals to increase the attenuation as the distance increases, and to decrease the attenuation as the distance decreases” (emphasis added). The originally filed Disclosure does not provide adequate written description regarding anything related to “a distance … decreases as a function of time” and “to decrease the attenuation as the distance decreases”. For example, paragraph 36 of Applicant’s Specification states, “Therefore, in order to optimize the secure bit rate for varying channel loss, the source attenuation is increased as the channel loss increases, so that the secure bit rate follows the broken line in FIGS. 6 and 7”, and paragraph 37 states, “the optimum source attenuation increases with further increase in channel loss”, however these citations do not provide support of decreasing the attenuation as the distance decreases as a function of time. The examiner further acknowledges that while there are other paragraphs in Applicant’s Specification that describe controlling a variable attenuator based on the position of a satellite, none of these additional citations provide support of decreasing the attenuation as the distance decreases as a function of time or increasing and decreasing the attenuation based on the distance. Therefore, absent such written description from Applicant’s Disclosure, the examiner finds that claim 36 fails to meet the requirements established under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 21-27, 29, and 30 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a channel loss" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 17, which claim 21 depends from, recites “channel loss” and “the channel loss”. Thus, claim 17 seems to have already introduced the term “channel loss” for the first time resulting in claim 21’s recitation of “a channel loss” have insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “wherein the range” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 17, 19, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tajima” (US 2007/0230688) in view of “Legre” (US 2020/0044835).
Regarding Claim 17:
Tajima teaches:
A quantum key distribution system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a transmitter (Fig. 6, element 100) adapted to transmit a coded photon stream over a … quantum channel (Fig. 6, element 300; ¶0068, “In the sender 100, as described already, the TX 111 phase-modulates an optical pulse in accordance with a random number as a source of a key, and the phase-modulated optical pulse is attenuated by the ATT 112 and then transmitted to the receiver 200 through a quantum channel 301…”), wherein the transmitter comprises a single photon source (Fig. 6, element 110) adapted to generate the coded photon stream comprising photons representing quantum key distribution (QKD) bit values (¶0068, “… the TX 111 phase-modulates an optical pulse in accordance with a random number as a source of a key…”; ¶0070, “When a final cryptographic key is thus generated by the TX 111…”; ¶0080, “A key generation section 111-5 in the TX 111 … according to the BB84 protocol as described already…”; i.e., the TX 111 of QKD 110 is responsible for generating photons corresponding to random QKD bit values via the BB84 protocol shown in Fig. 1), and an attenuator (Fig. 6, element 112) adapted to attenuate the coded photon stream (¶0068, “… and the phase-modulated optical pulse is attenuated by the ATT 112…”), the attenuator being variable so as to provide a variable attenuation of the coded photon stream (¶0067, “The security control section 120 controls … the amount of attenuation to be set on the ATT 112…”;
a receiver adapted to receive the coded photon stream from the quantum channel (Fig. 6, element 200);
a controller (Fig. 6, element 120) adapted to control the attenuator so as to vary the attenuation (¶0067, “The security control section 120 controls … the amount of attenuation to be set on the ATT 112…”); and
Tajima does not disclose:
a transmitter adapted to transmit a coded photon stream over a free space quantum channel, …
a loss measurer adapted to measure channel loss on the quantum channel and connected to the controller, wherein the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to increase the attenuation in response to an increase in the channel loss.
Legre teaches:
a transmitter adapted to transmit a coded photon stream over a free space quantum channel (¶0007, “Note that the physical medium used to carry optical communication channels is made of optical fibers in general. However, other media are possible like e.g. free-space propagation…”), …
a loss measurer adapted to measure channel loss on the quantum channel (¶0052, “… the monitoring devices for quantum channels are QKD emitter 102 and QKD receiver 112. They both collaborate together in order to compute the QBER value on the quantum channel”) and connected to the controller (¶0052, “… this QBER value can be sent to the processing units (230 and 330) through dedicated communication links (250 and 350)”), wherein the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to increase the attenuation in response to an increase in the channel loss (¶0053, “… processing unit 230 is able to adjust the attenuation value of VOA 150 in such a manner that noise in the quantum channels due to the classical channels is low enough to allow the secret key exchange (i.e. the QBER value to be below a predetermined threshold value)”; ¶0008, “The higher the QBER value, the larger the error rate with respect to the signal rate”; i.e., a high QBER value results from a high amount of channel loss on a quantum channel. Thus, Legre’s variable attenuator is controlled to increase attenuation when channel loss (QBER) on a quantum channel exceeds a threshold (i.e., the channel loss is increased) in order to ensure output power is at a range to allow secret key exchange - see claim 1).
First, because both Tajima and Legre disclose a transmitter and a receiver transmitting photon streams over a quantum channel, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Tajima’s optical quantum channel with Legre’s free space quantum channel in order to achieve the predictable result of transmitting a photon stream over a free space quantum channel.
Second, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajima’s secure communication system by enhancing Tajima’s system to implement a loss measurer to measure channel loss on a quantum channel and adjust a variable optical attenuator based on the channel loss, as taught by Legre, in order to decrease noise on the quantum channel upon a threshold being surpassed.
The motivation is to increase attenuation of a channel based upon measured channel loss surpassing a threshold in order to reduce noise on the channel thereby ensuring a secret key exchange within a secure communication system can proceed (Legre, ¶0011, “This increase of noise in the quantum channels leads to an increase of the QBER values that might be above the threshold value allowing the secret key generation”).
Regarding Claim 19:
The system according to Claim 17 wherein Tajima in view of Legre further teaches the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to vary the attenuation as a function of position of at least one of the transmitter and the receiver (Tajima, Fig. 3 details the security of photons per pulse relative to transmission distance between a transmitter and a receiver; ¶0025, “From the viewpoint of the transmission distance, it is preferable to keep the mean number of photons per pulse much smaller than 1.0, in the case of seeking for the security at the level of beating the PNS attack. However, as can be seen from this graph, for the security at the level of beating the beam splitting attack 1, even if the mean number of photons is 1.0 to 4.0, it is possible to cover some transmission distance”; ¶0026, “Some users might put a higher priority on the transmission distance …”; ¶0039, “The first communication device may further include a variable attenuator for changing the means number of photons in an optical pulse on the communication channel under control of the security controller”; i.e., Tajima’s security controller is able to modify the variable attenuation to provide greater than a single photon per pulse if a user prioritizes transmission distance, thus varying the attenuation as a function of position between the transmitter and receiver).
Regarding Claim 31:
The system according to Claim 17 wherein Tajima in view of Legre further teaches the coded photon stream represents the QKD bits in polarization states of the photons (Tajima, Fig. 1 details QKD bits being represented by polarization states (phases) of photons; ¶0011, “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram showing a concept of a quantum key distribution method according to the BB84 protocol … Alice 141 randomly performs any one of four types of modulation (0, π/2, π, 3 π./2) on each single photon depending on a combination of the random numbers, and sends it to Bob 143”).
Regarding Claim 32:
The system according to Claim 17 wherein Tajima in view of Legre further teaches the single photon source comprises a triggered quantum emitter (Tajima, Fig. 6, element 110 comprising element 111) being responsive to a trigger event (Fig. 6 - “user request”) to generate a single photon (¶0011, “Alice 141 randomly performs any one of four types of modulation (0, π/2, π, 3 π./2) on each single photon depending on a combination of the random numbers, and sends it to Bob 143”; ¶0057, “As will be described later, the trade-off between the degree of security and the amount of key (key generation rate) can be controlled in accordance with a user request…”; Fig. 3 further details an example of security when the photon number is set to ‘1.0’).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tajima” (US 2007/0230688) in view of “Legre” (US 2020/0044835) in further view of “Wellbrock” (US 2012/0195428).
Regarding Claim 18:
Tajima in view of Legre teaches:
The system according to Claim 17 …
Tajima in view of Legre does not disclose:
… wherein the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to vary the attenuation as a function of time.
Wellbrock teaches:
… wherein the controller is adapted to control the attenuator to vary the attenuation as a function of time (¶0014, “The method includes transmitting a time-shared signal alternately including a quantum signal and a public data signal; applying high attenuation to the time-shared signal during quantum signal time slices; and applying low attenuation to the time-shared signal during public channel signal time slices”; i.e., provide variable attenuation as a function of signal time slices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajima in view of Legre’s secure communication system by enhancing Tajima in view of Legre’s variable attenuator to vary as a function of signal time slices, as taught by Wellbrock, in order to protect quantum data signals being sent over long distances.
The motivation is to enable quantum signals to traverse greater distances while maintaining security of the quantum signal itself by providing an attenuator that can be controlled to vary the attenuation based on whether a time slice corresponds to a public signal or the quantum signal (Wellbrock, ¶0010; ¶0047, “More particularly, for each quantum key time slice, first attenuation device 904 may add a high attenuation to the signal, thereby lowering the power of the output signal. For each public channel transmission time slice, the applied attenuation may be removed or otherwise reduced, resulting in a higher power signal relative to the quantum key generation signal”).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tajima” (US 2007/0230688) in view of “Legre” (US 2020/0044835) in further view of “Harrison I” (US 2010/0080394).
Regarding Claim 21:
Tajima in view of Legre teaches:
The system according to Claim 17 …
Tajima in view of Legre does not disclose:
… wherein the loss measurer is adapted to transmit a reference beam of photons between the transmitter and the receiver and to measure losses in the reference beam thereby to measure a channel loss on the quantum channel.
Harrison I teaches:
… wherein the loss measurer is adapted to transmit a reference beam of photons between the transmitter and the receiver (Fig. 5, elements 50 transmitting 51F) and to measure losses in the reference beam thereby to measure a channel loss on the quantum channel (Fig. 5, element 57 measures the intensity value of any received light beams thereby to detect the presence of a probe beam (i.e., noise) on the channel).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajima in view of Legre’s secure communication system by enhancing Tajima in view of Legre’s loss measurer to detect intensity values of received light beams and vary an attenuator in accordance with the intensity values, as taught by Harrison I, in order to prevent unwanted interference on a quantum channel.
The motivation is to control attenuation of a quantum channel based on a detected intensity of received light (i.e., channel loss) so that attenuation can be increased when the detected intensity increases, thereby reducing the likelihood that a quantum signal would be returned to an eavesdropper on the channel (Harrison I, ¶0057; ¶0058).
Regarding Claim 22:
The system according to Claim 21 wherein Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I teaches the loss measurer comprises a reference photon generator on the receiver (Harrison I, Fig. 5, element 50) and a reference photon detector on the transmitter (Harrison I, Fig. 5, element 57).
The motivation to reject claim 22 by applying Harrison I to Tajima in view of Kawamoto is the same motivation applied in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tajima” (US 2007/0230688) in view of “Legre” (US 2020/0044835) in further view of “Harrison I” (US 2010/0080394) in further view of “Harrison II” (US 2007/0025551).
Regarding Claim 23:
Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I teaches:
The system according to Claim 22 …
Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I does not disclose:
… wherein the reference beam is a laser beam, and the transmitter is adapted to use the laser beam to monitor alignment of the transmitter and the receiver.
Harrison II teaches:
… wherein the reference beam is a laser beam (¶0027, “The third (alignment) channel emitter 16 comprises a bright visible light laser emitter 40…”), and the transmitter is adapted to use the laser beam to monitor alignment of the transmitter and the receiver (¶0036, “The alignment beam detector 53 comprises a rectangular array 72 of light detection elements arranged to detect light of the wavelength emitted by the laser emitter 40 used in the third emitter 16”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I’s secure communication system by enhancing Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I’s system to monitor for alignment of a laser beam, as taught by Harrison II, in order to ensure a quantum signal is correctly aligned.
The motivation is to monitor alignment between a transmitter and a receiver on a quantum channel by utilizing an alignment channel. This ensures that information transmitted on the channel remains accurate via minimal channel light bleed.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tajima” (US 2007/0230688) in view of “Legre” (US 2020/0044835) in view of “Harrison I” (US 2010/0080394) in further view of “Heynssens” (US 2024/0346134).
Regarding Claim 24:
Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I teaches:
The system according to Claim 21 …
Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I does not disclose:
… wherein the reference beam has a wavelength and the coded photon stream has a wavelength, and the wavelength of the reference beam is no more than 10% longer or shorter than the wavelength of the coded photon stream.
Heynssens teaches:
… wherein the reference beam has a wavelength and the coded photon stream has a wavelength, and the wavelength of the reference beam is within 10% of the wavelength of the coded photon stream (Fig. 8 details a “µ mismatch” of 0%-10%; ¶0064, “The results are tabulated in FIG. 8 and clearly show that during a PNS attack the percent difference in the transmission rates of the two wavelengths consistently nearly doubles across a range of percent mismatch in the means of the Poisson distributions of the two lasers”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I’s secure communication system by enhancing Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I’s system determine mismatches between wavelengths in accordance with a value of 0-10%, as taught by Heynssens, in order to detect possible PNS attacks on a quantum channel.
The motivation is to detect a PNS attack on quantum channel by measuring and detecting mismatches between wavelengths, thus improving the overall security of the quantum channel (Heynssens, ¶0059, “Thus, the difference in the two transmission rates (and therefore the reception rates) increases significantly during a PNS attack”).
Regarding Claim 25:
The system according to Claim 21 wherein Tajima in view of Legre in view of Harrison I in further view of Heynssens teaches the reference beam has a wavelength and the coded photon stream has a wavelength, and the wavelength of the reference beam is no more than 5% longer or shorter of the wavelength of the coded photon stream (Heynssens, Fig. 8 details a “µ mismatch” of 0%-1%; ¶0064, “The results are tabulated in FIG. 8 and clearly show that during a PNS attack the percent difference in the transmission rates of the two wavelengths consistently nearly doubles across a range of percent mismatch in the means of the Poisson distributions of the two lasers”).
The motivation to reject claim 25 by applying Heynssens to Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I is the same motivation applied in the rejection of claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 26:
The system according to Claim 25 wherein Tajima in view of Legre in view of Harrison I in further view of Heynssens teaches the wavelength of the reference beam is equal to the wavelength of the coded photon stream (Heynssens, Fig. 8 details a “µ mismatch” of 0%; ¶0059, “When there is no eavesdropping, the percent difference between the two wavelengths remains constant, and is the same as the percent difference in the means of the Poisson distributions of the two lasers”).
The motivation to reject claim 26 by applying Heynssens to Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Harrison I is the same motivation applied in the rejection of claim 24 above.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tajima” (US 2007/0230688) in view of “Legre” (US 2020/0044835) in further view of “Vig” (US 2005/0111667).
Regarding Claim 29:
Tajima in view of Legre teaches:
The system according to Claim 17 …
Tajima in view of Legre does not disclose:
… wherein the range is in a first range, and the attenuator is adapted to provide a fixed minimum attenuation over at least a second range of channel losses.
Vig teaches:
… wherein the range is in a first range, and the attenuator is adapted to provide a fixed minimum attenuation over at least a second range of channel losses (¶0028, “In 208, VOA 40 is adjusted (e.g., swept or stepped) over a range of attenuation, e.g., from its maximum attenuation AMAX to its minimum attenuation AMIN”; ¶0036, “In 304, the average power P'A needed in each optical pulse outputted by optical radiation source 30 to achieve the desired average power PA at receiving detector 82 is calculated, taking into account the system attenuation, losses…”; i.e., step the attenuator over a range of attenuation corresponding to a maximum and a minimum value, taking into account the channel losses).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Tajima in view of Legre’s secure communication system by enhancing Tajima in view of Legre’s controller to utilize a calibration curve to modify attenuation of an attenuator, based on channel loss, as taught by Vig, in order to allow a QKD system to self-calibrate itself for proper usage.
The motivation is to utilize predefined calibration parameters generated responsive to attenuation levels relative to power levels of a QKD system, while taking into consideration channel losses. This allows the QKD system to self-calibrate and thus simplifying the setup process of the QKD system (Vig, ¶0008).
Regarding Claim 30:
The system according to Claim 29 wherein Tajima in view of Legre in further view of Vig teaches the first range is higher than the second range (Vig. ¶0029. “In 216, controller 80 sends a control signal to optical radiation source 30 to cause the optical radiation source to emit optical pulses that vary in pulse width w over a range of pulse widths that vary from a minimum to a maximum usable pulse width”; i.e., a first, higher range of channel losses would require increasing (maximum) power to be used while a second, lower range of channel loses would require decreasing (minimum) power to be used).
The motivation to reject claim 30 by applying Vig to Tajima in view of Legre is the same motivation applied in the rejection of claim 29 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the subject matter of claim 27 when considered in view of intervening claim 21 and independent claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491