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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-5 should be labeled as prior art. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the specification, the description of figures 1-5 should be referred to “prior art” and not described as a comparison example. Also, in the background of the invention, in brackets there are two listings one labeled a prior art document and one labeled a patent publication. It needs to be correctly listed with the document information for both and supplied on an IDS as well. Applicant is reminded of his duty to disclose information material to patentability as set forth in 37 CFR 1.56.
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 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: the signal generating unit of claims 1, 5, 7 and 10; the frequency analysis unit of claims 4, 5 and 8; the frequency adjustment unit of claim 5, and the difference acquisition unit of claims 8 and 10.
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 rejections under 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art figure 1 in view of Chornenky US 20210105036-A1 (hereafter Chornenky).
9. Consider claim 1. Applicants prior art fig 1 teaches a transceiving device (fig 1), comprising: a modulated signal generating unit (1), configured to generate a modulated signal (tx); a transmitting unit (21), configured to be driven by the modulated signal; a receiving unit (22), configured to receive a transmission signal transmitted from the transmitting unit; and a filter (24), configured to receive a receiving signal output from the receiving unit and, wherein the modulated signal is a sweep signal (sine signal) that changes between a predetermined first frequency higher than a frequency of the filter and a predetermined second frequency lower than the frequency (based on the bands of the bandpass filter). Applicants’ prior art fig 1 fails to teach using a crystal filter (resonant filter) in place of the bandpass filter. However, such use is notoriously well known in the art as taught by Chorneky (0084) which teaches such as a means to enhance the SNR of the signal. It would have been and obvious substitution of filters, before the effective filing date, to substitute the crystal filter taught by Chorneky with the bandpass filter taught by the prior art fig 1 to provide a cleaner signal for measurement purposes.
10. For what is called for in claim 3. The applicant’s prior art description at (0024) teaches wherein the modulated signal is a sine wave signal or a square wave signal.
11. For what is called for in claim 4. Applicants’ prior art description teaches both a frequency analysis unit (26B), configured to perform frequency analysis on a signal based on an output of the crystal filter, wherein a power spectral value (0028) of a frequency of the modulated signal obtained by the frequency analysis unit is treated as a signal strength.
12. For what is called for in claim 7. Applicants’ prior art description at (0025) teaches, wherein the modulated signal generating unit is configured to turn on and off the modulated signal.
13. Consider claim 11. Applicants’ prior art description at (0025) teaches wherein each of the transmitting unit and the receiving unit includes a resonant-tunneling diode, and in the modulated signal, a lower limit voltage is set to a voltage at which a terahertz wave is not transmitted, and a upper limit voltage is set to a voltage at which a terahertz wave is transmitted.
14. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art figure 1 in view of Chornenky US 20210105036-A1 further in view of Joen Kr 20200099362A (hereafter Joen).
15. The combination of Applicants prior art figs 1-5 and Chornenky fail to explicitly teach, wherein a central frequency between the first frequency and the second frequency is the resonant frequency. However, Joen teaches a tunable crystal (notch type) filters in the Terahertz band are adjustable based on the desired usage (see background). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to use a tunable crystal filter as taught by Joen in the combination to attenuate the modulated signal to eliminate higher end noise.
16. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art figure 1 in view of Chornenky US 20210105036-A1 further in view of Krogstad US 20220179059 A1 (hereafter Krogstad).
17. Regarding claim 9. The use of an envelope detector at the back end of a filter is notoriously well known as taught by Krogstad (fig 7 and corresponding description (at 0042 and 0044). It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to add an envelope detector at the back end of the filter to isolate the desired signal (the signal strength) thus limiting the addition BPF components and reducing the overall cost.
18. Claims 5, 6, 8 and 10 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.
19. Regarding claim 5. The prior art of record fails to teach: a frequency adjustment unit, based on a frequency at which the power spectral value obtained by the frequency analysis unit as a peak upon transmission and receipt of the modulated signal in a predetermined sweep range, configured to detect a deviation from the central frequency in the sweep range and adjust the central frequency according to the detected deviation, wherein the modulated signal generating unit is configured to generate the modulated signal in a range narrower than the sweep range at the central frequency after adjustment. Dependent Claim 6 is allowable since depends on claim 5.
20. Regarding claim 8. The prior art of record fails to teach: a frequency analysis unit, configured to perform frequency analysis on a signal based on an output of the crystal filter; and a difference acquisition unit, wherein a first frequency analysis result is obtained by performing frequency analysis using the frequency analysis unit for a part of the receiving signal corresponding to an ON part of the modulated signal, a second frequency analysis result is obtained by performing frequency analysis using the frequency analysis unit for a part of the receiving signal corresponding to an OFF part of the modulated signal, the difference acquisition unit is configured to obtain a difference between a power spectral value of a frequency of the modulated signal according to the first frequency analysis result and a power spectral value of a frequency of the modulated signal according to the second frequency analysis result, as a signal strength.
21. Regarding claim 10. The prior art of record fails to teach a difference acquisition unit, wherein the modulated signal generating unit is configured to turn on and off the modulated signal, and the difference acquisition unit is configured to obtain a difference between a first envelope obtained by the envelope detection circuit for a part of the receiving signal corresponding to an ON part of the modulated signal and a second envelope obtained by the envelope detection circuit for a part of the receiving signal corresponding to an OFF part of the modulated signal.
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
23. WO-2021198026-A1 Wiegner teaches a transceiver comprising: a transmit signal path; a receive signal path; bidirectional amplification circuitry reconfigurable for use in both the transmit signal path or receive signal path. The amplification circuitry includes at least one resonant tunnelling diode; and the control circuitry is configured to selectively couple the amplification circuitry into the transmit or receive path of the transceiver in dependence upon whether the transceiver is to operate to transmit or receive a signal.
24. 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 on M-Th from 5:30am to 3pm and Fri from 5:30am 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