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 .
The applicants IDS filed 11/29/23 was considered on 12/29/29 and an initialed copy of the 1449 was submitted in that office action. Applicants’ amendments to the specification have been entered. Applicants’ amendments to the drawings have not been entered. Each separate figure should have a label of “Prior art” rather than a single one at the top of the page.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. Claims 1-11 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.
4. In claim 1, on line 9 it states that the modulation signal the sweep signal is that linearly changes. But in claim 3, the modulation signal is referred to as a “sine” wave signal. It’s unclear how can it be linear and a sine wave?
5. 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) further in view of Casagrande US 10177808 B2.
6. 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. Chorneky fails to teach his sweep signal being linear. However, Casagrande teaches such (see fig 6, and col 7, lines 64-66 where in the chirp signal is equivalent to the sweep signal). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use the teachings of Casagrande in APPA fig 1 in combination with Chornenky in order to reduce noise and improve signal quality.
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.
7. For what is called for in claim 4. Applicants’ prior art description teaches both a frequency analyzer (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 analyzer is treated as a signal strength.
8. For what is called for in claim 7. Applicants’ prior art description at (0025) teaches, wherein the signal generating is configured to turn on and off the modulated signal.
9. 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.
10. 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 in view of Casagrande US 10177808 B2 further in view of Joen Kr 20200099362A (hereafter Joen).
11. The combination of Applicants prior art figs 1-5, Chornenky and Casagrande 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.
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants prior art figure 1 in view of Chornenky US in view of Casagrande 20210105036-A1 further in view of Krogstad US 20220179059 A1 (hereafter Krogstad).
13. 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.
14. Claims 5, 6, 8 and 10 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.
See reasons for allowance in the previous office action mailed 12/29/25.
15. In addition to the above, adding the following to claim 1 would overcome the art of record “wherein when the modulated signal is set as a sweep signal, the signal strength is attenuated and the SNR is significantly suppressed as the sweep range increases.” The examiner is available to discuss in an interview anytime in the below stated schedule.
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takamatsu EP-4703766-A1 teaches (fig 3) in a Radar system where the signal generation processing unit 11 may generate signals (linear chirp signals) whose frequency varies periodically and linearly. For example, the signal generation processing unit 11 may generate chirp signals whose frequency increases periodically and linearly from 77 GHz to 81 GHz over time. As another example, the signal generation processing unit 11 may generate a signal whose frequency periodically and linearly increases (up-chirp) from 77 GHz to 81 GHz and then decreases (down-chirp) over time.
Voyce US 4754277 teaches a radar system that aside from sweep linearity, is sweep repeatability. Repeatability refers to the fact that the linear sweep rate is the same from one sweep to the next. Sweep repeatability requires that the 100 MHz difference signal that would be produced by mixing the signals provided by local oscillators 120 and 122 be coherent, i.e., phase locked, with respect to the reference signal produced by reference oscillator 92 on line 94 and the sweep signal produced by retrace circuit 110. Further, the 100 MHz signal provided by oscillator 170 on line 180 is also input to frequency divider 192 and to mixer 194. Frequency divider 192 divides the 100 MHz signal to produce a 1.25 MHz signal on line 196 that forms the other input to mixer 194. The resulting mixed signal is input to crystal filter 198. The crystal filter preferentially selects the 101.25 MHz component of the mixed signal, to produce the reference signal on line 94. The 1.25 MHz signal on line 196 is also input to frequency divider 188, The division factor of frequency divider 188 being suitable for producing a sweep signal on line 190 of the appropriate frequency.
17. Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the addition of “linear” to claim 1, applicants’ arguments on page 2 are moot in view of the newly found reference to Casagrande. Regarding the applicants’ arguments on page 3, Chornenky is relied on the teaching and function of his crystal filter, filtering a received signal has the same functionality as filtering a transmitted signal (i.e. to remove noise). It is a mere substitution of one known filter and function for that taught in the applicant admitted prior art fig 1. Further, applicants’ arguments directed to “transmitter adjustments, modulation index, frequency shift or predistortion” is not claimed.
Conclusion
18. 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.
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 530am 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
Prosecution Insights