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 .
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 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 1 recites the limitation "an absolute value of a voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal being not less than 0 V and not greater than 10V" in line 18. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the absolute value of the voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal is 0V, 1V or 5V” in line 20. These two statements are contradictory because the range of the first limitation is greater than the maximum absolute value of the second limitation. Given the fact that these two limitations are specifying characteristics for the same second electrical signal, selection of one limitation is required to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "wherein an absolute value of a voltage amplitude of the first electrical signal being not less than 0V and not greater than 500V; an absolute value of a voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal being not less than 0V and not greater than 1 OV; and the absolute value of the voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal is 0V, 1V or 5V" in lines 16-20. There is indefinite language in this claim because an electrical signal physically cannot have a voltage value of 0V. If the value is 0V there is no signal. Therefore, the minimum bounds of the claim limitations should be amended to a nonzero value, such as 0.1 or 1V, to prove the absolute value minimum of the signal exists at an actual voltage value.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an absolute value of a voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal being not less than 0 V and not greater than 10V" in line 18. Claim 14 also recites the limitation “the absolute value of the voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal is 0V, 1V or 5V” in line 20. These two statements are contradictory because the range of the first limitation is greater than the maximum absolute value of the second limitation. Given the fact that these two limitations are specifying characteristics for the same second electrical signal, selection of one limitation is required to clarify the claim language.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "wherein an absolute value of a voltage amplitude of the first electrical signal being not less than 0V and not greater than 500V; an absolute value of a voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal being not less than 0V and not greater than 1 OV; and the absolute value of the voltage amplitude of the second electrical signal is 0V, 1V or 5V" in lines 16-20. There is indefinite language in this claim because an electrical signal physically cannot have a voltage value of 0V. If the value is 0V there is no signal. Therefore, the minimum bounds of the claim limitations should be amended to a nonzero value, such as 0.1 or 1V, to prove the absolute value minimum of the signal exists at an actual voltage value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-19 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 112(b). There are issues with indefinite and unclear language in the independent claims, as shown above. Appropriate correction to the independent claims is required to place claims in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA CATHERINE ANTHONY whose telephone number is (703)756-4514. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, EST, M-F.
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, BENJAMIN KLEIN can be reached at (571)270-5213. 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.
/MARIA CATHERINE ANTHONY/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights