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. Election/Restrictions Claim s 18 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/6/2026 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment where a phase rotation device of the test system is actuated taking into account a target phase shift angle of 90 degrees between the at least one phase-shifted first signal and at least one second signal which has been phase-shifted using the phase rotation device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Th is corresponds to non-elected species B and is described at page 8, lines 14-24 of the substitute specification as a feature which is “not shown” in the d rawings. The embodiment is specified in independent claims 15, 19, 22, 24, and 28. No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to because reference number 76 in Figure 2 is labeled as “first and/or spectrum analysis device”, whereas “first” should be --filter--. 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 s to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “A calibration device… configured to:” (actuate oscillators, actuate a phase rotation device, ascertain deviation information) in independent claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d "[ 2 ]" 15 , 19, and 22. The term “calibration” preceding the generic placeholder “device” is not defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art that denotes the type of structural device , and does not represent sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 28 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 is missing punctuation at the conclusion of the penultimate limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 15-28 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 15 at lines 4-5 requires at least one first signal which “varies with at least one specified target frequency”. Lines 5-6 then require at least one second signal which “varies with at least the specified target frequency”. A corresponding limitation is present in independent claims 19, 22, 24, and 28. This wording is unclear as to if the at least one second signal varies with the specified target frequency (and maybe more frequencies), or rather if the at least one second signal varies with a frequency that is “at least”, i.e. a frequency equal to or higher than, the specified target frequency. From the specification it appears that the former is intended (Specification page 7, lines 19-28) but clarification is required. The language: --varies with the at least one specified target frequency-- is suggested. Similar language is also found in claim 20 and the final limitation of claim 28. Claims 16-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 depend on one of claims 15, 19, 22, and 24, and are likewise indefinite for this reason . Independent claims 15, 19, 22, 24, and 28 require the calibration device actuate a phase rotation device “taking into account a target shift angle of 90° …such that an actual phase shift angle is produced” , e.g. at claim 15, lines 9-14 and the corresponding limitations of claims 19, 22, 24, and 28. The claims do not indicate what phase is being rotated by the rotation device and t he metes and bounds of what qualifies as “taking into account” are indefinite. Even if read narrowly such that rotation is applied to one or more of the oscillator signals, i t appears it is not the intent to in fact actuate the phase rotation device to impose a 90° shift , as “an actual phase shift angle” is produced per the claims which is not necessarily 90° . However it is not clear what the scope “taking into account” otherwise encompasses . What does the calibration device do with this 90° target? What phase is being rotated, and what limitation on the step/function of actuating the phase rotation device does taking the target “ into account ” impose? Claims 16-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 depend on one of claims 15, 19, 22, 24, and are likewise indefinite for this reason. Independent claims 15, 19, 22, 24, and 28 require the calibration device ascertain “ deviation information relating to a deviation of the actual phase shift angle from the target phase shift angle…”, e.g. at claim 15, line 19 and the corresponding limitations of claims 19, 22, 24, and 28. The scope of this deviation information “relating to” the claimed deviation is indefinite as there is nothing defining this relation in the claims or specification. It is apparent that “deviation information relating to a deviation” is intended to encompass “information” other than the deviation itself, but the metes and bounds of such cannot be determined. Claims 16-17, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 depend on one of claims 15, 19, 22, 24, and are likewise indefinite for this reason. Claims 20 and 28 require ascertaining “interference frequency information relating to” interference frequency/frequencies of a number of possible signals. The scope of this interference frequency information “relating to” the claimed interference frequency is indefinite as there is nothing apparent defining this relation in the claims or specification. Indeed it is apparent that “interference frequency information relating to” interference frequency/frequencies is intended to encompass “information” other than the interference frequency itself, but the metes and bounds of such cannot be determined. Claim limitation “calibration device… configured to” (actuate oscillators, actuate a phase rotation device, ascertain deviation information) set forth in claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d "[ 2 ]" 15 , 19, and 22 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. The “calibration device” is illustrated only as a box 50 in Figures 2 and 3 and is generally described throughout the specification as a generic structure defined only by its functions. The most relevant disclosure to any structural element appears to be at page 14, lines 18-24 of the substitute specification, stating: “In any of the above-described embodiments, the calibration device 50 can be a component/subunit of the test system. The calibration device 50 can in particular be integrated into the control and evaluation electronics 80 of the test system. Alternatively, however, the calibration device 50 can also cooperate with the test system as a device disposed externally to the test system.” The passage does not describe the structure of the calibration device, instead employing generic terms “component”, “subunit” , and “device” . The disclosure that it optionally can be “integrated into” generic “control and navigation electronics” does not clearly link corresponding structure serving as the “calibration device” to the function. It is also noted that such “electronics” ( 80 ) are illustrated as a separate element from calibration device ( 50 ) in Figures 2 and 3. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (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. Claims 16-17, 20-21, and 23 depend on one of claims 15, 19, and 22, and are likewise indefinite for this reason. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the test mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 recites the limitation "the test mode" on the final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 15-23 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. Concerning independent claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d "[ 2 ]" 15 , 19, and 22, a s shown above the following claim elements invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the disclosure not does not provide adequate structure for performing the function: “ calibration device… configured to” (actuate oscillators, actuate a phase rotation device, ascertain deviation information). A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description (MPEP 2181(IV)) . Claims 16-18, 20-21, and 23 depend on one of claims 15, 19, and 22 and likewise fail to comply with the written description requirement. Allowable Subject Matter As best can be determined, claims 15-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasch et al. represents the most relevant prior art identified. Hasch discloses two oscillators and regulating the phase shift of a 90 degree phase shifter imposing a phase shift on one of the oscillator outputs. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3103 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jack Keith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-273-6878 . 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. /MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646