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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The amendments filed 2/25/26 to the abstract of the disclosure is objected to and not entered because it is not on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Figure 1 and the corresponding description in the specification appears to be prior art not related art. This is evidenced by paragraph (0021) where the specification describes solving the above-mentioned problems associated with figure 1 and the corresponding description. Applicant is requested to clarify this or change the specification and figure 1 to prior art.
Appropriate correction is required.
4. The drawings are objected to because in view of the objection to the specification, figure 1 should be labeled as prior art (not related). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. In addition, the substitute drawings filed 2/25/26 has not been entered since it has not been clarified whether figure 1 is “prior art” or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1, on line 8 and claim 11 on line 12, “in turn” is indefinite and is not the same as “alternately” connected. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected since they depend upon claims 1 and 11 respectively.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art fig 1 or Tsironis US Pat 6674293 in view of Shapiro US Pat 10942212.
8. Consider claims 1 and 11. Both applicants’ prior art fig 1 as well as Tsironis (fig 6 also labeled prior art) teach an RF power measurement circuit and system that includes a signal generator, buffer, DUT, attenuator and spectrum analyzer. Tsironis (fig 6) also teaches an impedance transformer at the output of the DUT. Both fail to teach a plurality of impedance transformers corresponding to a plurality of impedance points on a reflection coefficient circle of the Smith chart. However, from the same field of endeavor, Shapiro teaches such (see col 6, lines 3-4; as well as col 6 lines 43-55). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date to utilize the teaches of Shapiro in either applicants prior art fig 1 or Tsironis in order to save money by avoiding the use of a load tuner in the test. Note: that the use of plural transformers would give you multiple impedance points on the Smith chart.
9. 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.
10. Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art fig 1 or Tsironis US Pat 6674293 in view of Shapiro US Pat 10942212 further in view of Podell US Pat 1056128.
11. Consider claims 2 and 12, although Sharpiro teaches an inductor (412) which includes a feed line (at node A) and transmission line (reflected signal in fig 4a). He doesn’t specifically state that the transformer is a ¼ wavelength transformer. (Note fig 6A includes a resistor in the circuit path). However, ¼ wave transformers along with the structure and characteristics claimed are well known in the art as taught by Podell US Pat 10536128-B1 (see example 2). It would have been an obvious substitution, before the effective filing date of one well known transformer circuit for another to use Podell’s transformer circuit in the combination to allow for greater power testing settings.
12. For claims 3 and 13, see example 7 of Podell which discloses the different trace lengths for the transmission line (136) and feeding line (134).
13. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art fig 1 or Tsironis US Pat 6674293 in view of Shapiro US Pat 10942212 further in view of Molnar et al US Pat 10971871. Tsironis doesn’t describe in his prior art fig 6 how his impedance transformer is connected in the circuit. However, the use SMA connectors for connecting transformers are notoriously well-known in the art as taught by Molnar (see fig 1 and corresponding description). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious (if not inherent) to use these well-known connectors taught by Molnar in to connect both impedance transformers taught by the combination in order for the circuity to work properly and efficiently.
14. Claim 4-9 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious an absolute value of a reflection coefficient is defined, by the radio frequency power measurement system, according to a verification requirement of the radio frequency power reliability test, and a reflection coefficient circle with a radius that equals to an absolute value of the reflectance is determined on the Smith chart as called for in claim 4 and 14. Dependent claims 5-9 and 15-19 are objected to since they depend directly on claims 4 and 14.
15. Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues on the bottom page 16 that Shapiro inductor 412 is a fixed inductor connection and not an “alternating connection scheme.” However, the argument is not directed to the claim subject matter as this is not explicitly stated in either claim 1 or claim 11. Also, on the top of page 17, the applicant argues the “effects of testing the breakdown capability of the DUT under a single high-impedance condition verses under different impedance conditions” is also not stated specifically in either independent claims 1 or 11.
16. The amendments to the specification filed 2/25/26 have been entered. The amendments to the abstract filed 2/25/26 have not been entered for the reasons above. The amendment to the drawings filed 2/25/26 have not been entered for the reasons above.
17. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th from 5:30am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646