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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 5, 9, 13, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 17-20 are new. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection, 35 USC 112(b), and 35 USC 112(d) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/20/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Fray fails to disclose all elements. The Examiner previous noted that a ‘work signal’ is interpreted by plain English, with ‘work’ meaning to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations. Therefore, the Applicant appears to argue for a narrower definition of “work signal” than is present in the claims. The Applicant argues that Fray does not disclose a conversion of the received signal into different form, domain or type of signal, however, the claim language does not define or limit the ‘conversion’ by these changes.
The Examiner notes that more defined conversions, are present by not claim, such as present in [00016] of the specification which discloses conversion between optical and electrical signals or [00017] which discloses a change in frequency. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a conversions is not limited to the examples provided by Applicant arguments.
The same arguments for a conversion to a work signal are also applied to a conversion from a work signal. The same or similar reasoning is applied to similar independent claim 15 and all dependent claims
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/20/2026 regarding 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(d) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(d) rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments.
Claim Rejections - 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray (GB 2318011 A), hereinafter Fray, in view of Cohen (US 20210364617 A1), hereinafter Cohen.
Regarding claim 1, Fray, as shown below, discloses a simulator to simulate a distance for at least one sensor, the simulator comprising (See at least Pg. 1 Lines 24-26 “The invention provides the advantage that time-delayed reflections from a simulator give the impression of a more distant object to an interrogating radar system, thereby simulating a large remote object to that system.”):
a receiver to receive a first sensor signal from the at least one sensor and (See at least Fig. 6, Pg. 4 Lines 16-17 “Microwave radiation is both received and subsequently transmitted from the antenna 4.”);
a delay section with a plurality of delay lines applied to at least one substrate (See at least Fig. 6, Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d”, Pg. 5 Line 20 “delay-line substrate may be utilized”);
a first electrical switch to switch a first selection of delay lines as a function of a first selection signal such that a signal path for the work signal includes the first selection (See at least Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d”);
a transmitter (See at least Fig. 6 Items 4a-4c, Pg. 4 Lines 16-17 “Microwave radiation is both received and subsequently transmitted from the antenna 4.”).
Fray does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Fig. 5, Item 128, [0040] “down-converted signal from the RX module 128” Cohen discloses a receive signal path including frequency down conversion.)
(See at least Fig. 5, Item 122, [0035] “The signal 218 is then transmitted by transmitter 122.” Cohen discloses a transmit signal path including frequency up conversion.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution, such as by using wires which is a well-known way of transmitting electricity.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Fray further discloses
the delay section has (See at least Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘second electrical switching device’, ‘second selection’, and ‘second selection signal’ includes interpretation that the ‘second’ is equivalent to a ‘first’ because no distinction is made between a ‘first’ and ‘second’ ).
Fray does not explicitly disclose
(See at least [0029] “Delay elements, as shown, may include inverters, conductive wire,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution, such as by using wires which is a well-known way of transmitting electricity.
Regarding claim 9, Fray, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant further recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Fray further discloses
(See at least Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘second electrical switching device’, ‘second selection’, and ‘second selection signal’ includes interpretation that the ‘second’ is equivalent to a ‘first’ because no distinction is made between a ‘first’ and ‘second’ ).
Fray does not explicitly disclose a plurality of electrical cables is provided,
a plurality of electrical cables is provided, (See at least [0029] “Delay elements, as shown, may include inverters, conductive wire,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution, such as by using wires which is a well-known way of transmitting electricity.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Fray additionally discloses
the delay section comprising: a receiving interface for receiving a work signal (See at least Fig. 3, “the interface element 16 comprises a photodiode 30 so that an optical signal, conveyed by means of the fibre-optic link 10, generates a bias voltage at the terminal G2 which […] is diverted to the delay line 18.”);
a plurality of delay lines applied to at least one substrate (See at least Fig. 6, Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d”, Pg. 5 Line 20 “delay-line substrate may be utilized”); and
a first electrical switching device set up to switch a first selection of delay lines as a function of a first selection signal such that the signal path for the work signal includes the first selection (See at least Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d”)
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Fray additionally discloses
the at least one sensor is radar or LIDAR sensors (See at least Pg. 4 Lines 1-2 “microwave radiation from an interrogating radar system incident upon the simulator”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen in further view of Wang (US 5177488 A), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Fray further discloses
the delay section includes a (See at least Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘third selection’, and ‘third selection signal’ includes interpretation that the ‘third’ is equivalent to a ‘first’ because no distinction is made between a ‘first’ and ‘third’ ).
The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Col. 4 Lines 37-38 “fiber optic delay lines 28, 30”, Col. 6 Lines 30-31 “fast operating electro-optic devices could be used for the switches 48 and 50”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the wiring system disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a desirably fast system (See at least Col. 6 Lines 30-31 “fast operating electro-optic devices could be used for the switches 48 and 50”).
Claims 4-5 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in futher view of Johnson (US 20030027586 A1), hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the receiver has a first transducer to receive the electromagnetic waves emitted by the at least one sensor, which form the first sensor signal in a first frequency range, and converts them into a work signal in a second frequency range. However, Johnson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the receiver has a first transducer to receive the electromagnetic waves emitted by the at least one sensor, which form the first sensor signal in a first frequency range, and converts them into a work signal in a second frequency range (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz, to reject backscattered return from the local transmitter. […] This twice filtered signal is mixed with the transmitter source oscillator 41 using a heterodyne mixer-downconverter 50, to an IF frequency of 1.00-1.85 GHz”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the transducer system disclosed by Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution by using lower frequency and therefore less expensive and more reliable internal components.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Fray, Cohen and Johnson, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the first frequency range is 77GHz and the second frequency range is between 1 GHz and 3GHz or 1.5GHz or 2.5GHz. However, Johnson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first frequency range is 77GHz and the second frequency range is between 1 GHz and 3GHz or 1.5GHz or 2.5GHz (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz, to reject backscattered return from the local transmitter. […] This twice filtered signal is mixed with the transmitter source oscillator 41 using a heterodyne mixer-downconverter 50, to an IF frequency of 1.00-1.85 GHz” The combination of Fray, Cohen and Johnson, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Fray, Cohen, and Johnson, does not explicitly disclose the first frequency range is 77GHz. The Examiner notes that while the claim element is not explicitly disclosed by Johnson, Johnson further discloses (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz). Therefore, the combination of Fray, Cohen, and Johnson differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention includes the first frequency range is 77GHz. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Fray and Johnson so that the first frequency range is 77GHz. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The ranges, amounts, or proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Johnson as shown in (See at least [0010] At frequencies above 60 GHz to about 130 GHz, antennas of practical size can generate highly directional "pencil beams" which do not interfere at all, because of their extremely limited spatial extent.”) would be expected to perform in the same way as the claimed invention as there is nothing that prohibits the system from performing at 77 GHz compared to 92.3 to 93.2 GHz. Therefore, there would be no unexpected result. Further, the Applicant’s disclosure does not disclose any criticality of range, value, or proportion that differs from the combination of Fray, Cohen and Johnson. One would be motivated to use this similar range to advantageously improve data gathering by reducing interference.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the transducer system disclosed by Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution by using lower frequency and therefore less expensive and more reliable internal components.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Fray, Cohen, and Johnson, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose an attenuator to attenuate the work signal with respect to its amplitude as a function of a fourth selection signal; and / or a frequency changer to change the work signal as a function of a fifth selection signal with respect to its frequency. However, Johnson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
an attenuator to attenuate the work signal with respect to its amplitude as a function of a fourth selection signal; and / or a frequency changer to change the work signal as a function of a fifth selection signal with respect to its frequency. (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz, to reject backscattered return from the local transmitter. […] This twice filtered signal is mixed with the transmitter source oscillator 41 using a heterodyne mixer-downconverter 50, to an IF frequency of 1.00-1.85 GHz” The Examiner notes that Johnson discloses frequency change from a received “work signal” to a downconverted/changed frequency.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the transducer system disclosed by Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution by using lower frequency and therefore less expensive and more reliable internal components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Baldischweiler (EP 4109130 A1), hereinafter Baldischweiler.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the substrate is a printed circuit board. However, Baldischweiler, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the substrate is a printed circuit board (See at least “a delay line is preferably implemented in a printed circuit board”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the PCB system disclosed by Baldischweiler. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a cleaner design by reducing loosely connected components.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Nathan (US 20220365190 A1), hereinafter Nathan.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose at least some of the delay lines are designed as waveguides. However, Nathan, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
at least some of the delay lines are designed as waveguides (See at least [0034] “The receiver may couple one or more of the incident pulses into an optical waveguide, such as an optical fiber, where a network of devices may measure, temporally delay”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the waveguide system disclosed by Nathan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously transfer a signal using a system that is signal efficient and less susceptible to losses.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Wang.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 10. Fray further discloses
(See at least Pg. 7 Lines 12-14 “The matrix 40 incorporates a number of electronic switches which are arranged to connect any of the antennae 4a, 4b, 4c to any of the acoustic-wave delay lines 18a, 18b, 18c,18d” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘third selection’, and ‘third selection signal’ includes interpretation that the ‘third’ is equivalent to a ‘first’ because no distinction is made between a ‘first’ and ‘third’ other than a medium for a signal to travel. However, multiple simultaneous pathways are disclosed by Fray.).
The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose a plurality of optical cables is provided, and wherein an electro-optical switching device
a plurality of optical cables is provided, and wherein an electro-optical switching device (See at least Col. 4 Lines 37-38 “fiber optic delay lines 28, 30”, Col. 6 Lines 30-31 “fast operating electro-optic devices could be used for the switches 48 and 50”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the wiring system disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a desirably fast system (See at least Col. 6 Lines 30-31 “fast operating electro-optic devices could be used for the switches 48 and 50”).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 10. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the receiver has a first transducer, which receives the electromagnetic waves emitted by the at least one sensor, which waves form the first sensor signal in a first frequency range, and converts them into a work signal in a second frequency range. However, Johnson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the receiver has a first transducer, which receives the electromagnetic waves emitted by the at least one sensor, which waves form the first sensor signal in a first frequency range, and converts them into a work signal in a second frequency range (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz, to reject backscattered return from the local transmitter. […] This twice filtered signal is mixed with the transmitter source oscillator 41 using a heterodyne mixer-downconverter 50, to an IF frequency of 1.00-1.85 GHz”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the transducer system disclosed by Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution by using lower frequency and therefore less expensive and more reliable internal components.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Fray, Cohen, and Johnson as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, 10, and 12. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the first frequency range is 77GHz and the second frequency range is between 1 GHz and 3GHz or 1.5GHz or 2.5GHz. However, Johnson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first frequency range is 77GHz and the second frequency range is between 1 GHz and 3GHz or 1.5GHz or 2.5GHz (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz, to reject backscattered return from the local transmitter. […] This twice filtered signal is mixed with the transmitter source oscillator 41 using a heterodyne mixer-downconverter 50, to an IF frequency of 1.00-1.85 GHz” The combination of Fray and Johnson, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Fray and Johnson, does not explicitly disclose the first frequency range is 77GHz. The Examiner notes that while the claim element is not explicitly disclosed by Johnson, Johnson further discloses (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz). Therefore, the combination of Fray and Johnson differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention includes the first frequency range is 77GHz. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Fray and Johnson so that the first frequency range is 77GHz. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The ranges, amounts, or proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Johnson as shown in (See at least [0010] At frequencies above 60 GHz to about 130 GHz, antennas of practical size can generate highly directional "pencil beams" which do not interfere at all, because of their extremely limited spatial extent.”) would be expected to perform in the same way as the claimed invention as there is nothing that prohibits the system from performing at 77 GHz compared to 92.3 to 93.2 GHz. Therefore, there would be no unexpected result. Further, the Applicant’s disclosure does not disclose any criticality of range, value, or proportion that differs from the combination of Fray and Johnson. One would be motivated to use this similar range to advantageously improve data gathering by reducing interference.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the transducer system disclosed by Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution by using lower frequency and therefore less expensive and more reliable internal components.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 10. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose an attenuator attenuates the work signal with respect to its amplitude as a function of a fourth selection signal and / or wherein a frequency changer changes the work signal with respect to its frequency as a function of a fifth selection signal. However, Johnson, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
an attenuator attenuates the work signal with respect to its amplitude as a function of a fourth selection signal and / or wherein a frequency changer changes the work signal with respect to its frequency as a function of a fifth selection signal (See at least [0036] The receiver is […] through the other port of the orthomode transducer 45. The received signal is filtered with bandpass filter 47A in a passband from 92.3 to 93.2 GHz, to reject backscattered return from the local transmitter. […] This twice filtered signal is mixed with the transmitter source oscillator 41 using a heterodyne mixer-downconverter 50, to an IF frequency of 1.00-1.85 GHz” The Examiner notes that Johnson discloses frequency change from a received “work signal” to a downconverted/changed frequency.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the transducer system disclosed by Johnson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously realize a simple and low-cost solution by using lower frequency and therefore less expensive and more reliable internal components.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Noonan (US 20190191359 A1), hereinafter Noonan.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the receiver comprises a heterodyne receiver. However, Noonan, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the receiver comprises a heterodyne receiver (See at least [0210] “the receiving system may represent a […] a super-heterodyne receiver that may detect and determine the frequency of operation of received signals”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the receiving system disclosed by Noonan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable wide frequency range coverage (See at least [0210] “the device may incorporate a receiving unit, designed to operate in one or more frequency bands over a wide frequency range”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Cheng (US 20060244654 A1), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose an input terminal configured to allow a person to control simulations performed by the simulator. However, Cheng, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
an input terminal configured to allow a person to control simulations performed by the simulator (See at least [0018] “returning the dynamic state information of the simulated target to the central control terminal and using the current state of the simulated target to renew the setting parameters”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the input terminal system disclosed by Cheng. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce cost (See at least [0058] “The present invention uses simple equipment such as a personal computer to simulate the dynamic state of a target object. Thus, the cost of the equipment and the fee for maintaining the equipment is low in the present invention”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Gruber (CN 110291413 A), hereinafter Gruber.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose simulating a plurality of objects having different delays in the second sensor signal via a plurality of signal paths, each of the plurality of signal paths including a respective delay section. However, Gruber, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
simulating a plurality of objects having different delays in the second sensor signal via a plurality of signal paths, each of the plurality of signal paths including a respective delay section (See at least Fig. 5, “a delay and modulation module 2 provided with two time delay configuration component 200 and two target analogue configuration component 300” “thereby emit radar target simulator, the output signal simulating the same and/or a plurality of objects in different distances”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the object delays system disclosed by Gruber. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve precision (See at least “This is particularly advantageous since in this way to generate radar target simulation display with higher precision”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fray, in view of Cohen, in further view of Xiang (CN 108010947 A), hereinafter Xiang.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Fray and Cohen, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 15. The combination of Fray and Cohen does not explicitly disclose the plurality of delay lines applied to the at least one substrate comprises a wave-shaped conductor formed on the at least one substrate. However, Xiang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the plurality of delay lines applied to the at least one substrate comprises a wave-shaped conductor formed on the at least one substrate (See at least Figs. 7c, 9b, Items 21, 22 “a substrate thin film transistor substrates 01 on the 22”, “in FIG. 9b, the first transparent conductor 21 is wave-shaped”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulator system disclosed by Fray with the wiring system disclosed by Cohen with the conductor system disclosed by Xiang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve consistency (See at least “so that the signal delay, so as to achieve the consistency of the transmission signal”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights