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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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 processing unit which is configured to receive the measurement values” in claim 1.
The claim term “unit” in the above claim(s) is a generic place holder because is not preceded by any structural modifier.
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.
3. 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 - 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-19 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically:
4.1. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “… in particular a vector network analyzer” (lines 1-2) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
4.2. Furthermore, claims 2-19 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim 1.
4.3. Claim 3 further recites the limitation “… preferably for all” (line 6) is indefinite because the phrase “preferably” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
4.4. Claim 17 recites the limitation(s) “the further device port” in line(s) 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
4.5. Claim 20 further recites the limitation “… in particular a vector network analyzer” (line 2) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claim 2, 5-6 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
6.1. Claim 2 is directed to “… calculate error terms …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 2 “wherein, in the calibration mode, the processing unit is configured … for the test and/or measurement system based on the measurement values received for each connected calibration standard”, and the additional element(s) of independent claim 1 “A test and/or measurement system, in particular a vector network analyzer, comprising: an RF signal source configured to generate an RF stimulus signal; a device port; a signal path which is arranged to electrically connect the RF signal source to the device port; a measurement unit which is coupled to the signal path, wherein the measurement unit is adapted for measuring the RF stimulus signal propagating via the signal path to the device port and a measurement signal received at the device port, wherein the measurement unit is configured to generate measurement values representing the respective measurement results; a processing unit which is configured to receive the measurement values; and at least one bias tee which is coupled to the signal path, wherein the bias tee comprises a DC input port which is configured to receive a DC bias signal, wherein the bias tee is arranged to couple the received DC bias signal into the signal path; wherein the test and/or measurement system is operable in a calibration mode during which at least four different calibration standards are alternately connected to the device port; wherein, for each connected calibration standard, the measurement unit is configured to measure the RF stimulus signal and the measurement signal; and wherein the test and/or measurement system is configured to couple the DC bias signal into the signal path via the bias tee during the connection of at least one of the calibration standards, but not during the connection of all of the calibration standards” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 2 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
6.2. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 2 is directed to a test and/or measurement system, in particular a vector network analyzer as set forth in claim 1, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
6.3.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 2 recites: “… calculate error terms …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
6.3.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 2 nor independent claim 1 claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of industries including but not limited to calibration of magnetic fields and radio frequencies, manufacturing of integrated circuits, wafers, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration into a practical application because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
6.4. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 2 recites the additional element(s) “wherein, in the calibration mode, the processing unit is configured … for the test and/or measurement system based on the measurement values received for each connected calibration standard”, and independent claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A test and/or measurement system, in particular a vector network analyzer, comprising: an RF signal source configured to generate an RF stimulus signal; a device port; a signal path which is arranged to electrically connect the RF signal source to the device port; a measurement unit which is coupled to the signal path, wherein the measurement unit is adapted for measuring the RF stimulus signal propagating via the signal path to the device port and a measurement signal received at the device port, wherein the measurement unit is configured to generate measurement values representing the respective measurement results; a processing unit which is configured to receive the measurement values; and at least one bias tee which is coupled to the signal path, wherein the bias tee comprises a DC input port which is configured to receive a DC bias signal, wherein the bias tee is arranged to couple the received DC bias signal into the signal path; wherein the test and/or measurement system is operable in a calibration mode during which at least four different calibration standards are alternately connected to the device port; wherein, for each connected calibration standard, the measurement unit is configured to measure the RF stimulus signal and the measurement signal; and wherein the test and/or measurement system is configured to couple the DC bias signal into the signal path via the bias tee during the connection of at least one of the calibration standards, but not during the connection of all of the calibration standards”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
7. Claim 5 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the processing unit is configured to calculate a first set of error terms for a first level of the DC bias signal and at least a second set of error terms for at least a second level of the DC bias signal different to the first level”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
8. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a device-under-test, DUT, is connectable to the device port; wherein the test and/or measurement system is operable in a measurement mode during which the test and/or measurement system is configured to calculate scattering parameters of the DUT, wherein the scattering parameters are corrected by a set of error terms which is selected based on a level of a DC signal which is applied to the DUT”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
9. Claim 17 depends on claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the DUT is connectable to the device port and to the further device port; wherein, measurement in the measurement mode during, the system is configured to calculate test and/or scattering parameters of the DUT connected to the device port and to the further device port, wherein the scattering parameters are corrected by a set of error terms which is selected based on a signal a level of a DC signal which is applied to the DUT”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-8, 15 and 20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZIEGLER (Pub. No.: US 2019/0017940 hereinafter mentioned as “Ziegler”).
As per claim 1, Ziegler, in the embodiment of Fig. 3b, discloses:
A test and/or measurement system, in particular a vector network analyzer (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Fig. 3b), comprising:
an RF signal source configured to generate an RF stimulus signal (Fig. 3b, the implicit RF source of the VNA that generates the implicit RF-signal received by port radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]);
a device port (Fig. 3b, see radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]);
a signal path which is arranged to electrically connect the RF signal source to the device port (Fig. 3b, see the path between VNA and radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]);
a measurement unit (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b. Also see [0054]) which is coupled to the signal path (Fig. 3b, see the path between VNA and radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]), wherein the measurement unit (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b. Also see [0054]) is adapted for measuring the RF stimulus signal propagating via the signal path to the device port and a measurement signal received at the device port (Fig. 3b, see the path between VNA 31b and radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]), wherein the measurement unit is configured to generate measurement values representing the respective measurement results (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b. Also see [0054]);
a processing unit which is configured to receive the measurement values (Fig. 3b, see the measuring-device 31a. Also see [0054]); and
at least one bias tee which is coupled to the signal path (see [0054]).
The embodiment of Fig. 3b does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the bias tee comprises a DC input port which is configured to receive a DC bias signal, wherein the bias tee is arranged to couple the received DC bias signal into the signal path;
wherein the test and/or measurement system is operable in a calibration mode during which at least four different calibration standards are alternately connected to the device port;
wherein, for each connected calibration standard, the measurement unit is configured to measure the RF stimulus signal and the measurement signal; and
wherein the test and/or measurement system is configured to couple the DC bias signal into the signal path via the bias tee during the connection of at least one of the calibration standards, but not during the connection of all of the calibration standards.
However, other embodiment(s) further discloses:
wherein the bias tee comprises a DC input port which is configured to receive a DC bias signal (see [0052]. The implicit input-port where the DC bias signals are carried), wherein the bias tee (see [0051]) is arranged to couple the received DC bias signal into the signal path (see [0052]);
wherein the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3a) is operable in a calibration mode during which at least four different calibration standards are alternately connected to the device port (see [0046]);
wherein, for each connected calibration standard (see [0046]), the measurement unit is configured to measure the RF stimulus signal and the measurement signal (see [0052]); and
wherein the test and/or measurement system configured to couple the DC bias signal into the signal path via the bias tee (see [0051]-[0052]) is during the connection of at least one of the calibration standards (see [0046]), but not during the connection of all of the calibration standards (Fig. 1c, it implicit when connecting the short standard. Also see [0042] and [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “wherein the bias tee comprises a DC input port which is configured to receive a DC bias signal, wherein the bias tee is arranged to couple the received DC bias signal into the signal path; wherein the test and/or measurement system is operable in a calibration mode during which at least four different calibration standards are alternately connected to the device port; wherein, for each connected calibration standard, the measurement unit is configured to measure the RF stimulus signal and the measurement signal; and wherein the test and/or measurement system is configured to couple the DC bias signal into the signal path via the bias tee during the connection of at least one of the calibration standards, but not during the connection of all of the calibration standards” disclosed by other embodiment(s) into Fig. 3b of Ziegler, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by avoiding the use of additional connections for biasing and controlling (Ziegler, Paragraph [0052]), and also by providing a single touch down, especially a single probe tip touch down, is sufficient in order to perform a calibration with respect to each of the at least two calibration standards (Ziegler, Paragraph [0005]).
Furthermore, Ziegler states that “while a particular feature of the invention may have been disclosed with respect to only one of several implementations, such feature may be combined with one or more other features of the other implementations as may be desired and advantageous for any given or particular application” (Ziegler, Paragraph [0066]).
As per claim 2, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above.
Ziegler further discloses:
wherein, in the calibration mode, the processing unit (Fig. 3b, see the measuring-device 31a. Also see [0054]) is configured to calculate error terms for the test and/or measurement system based on the measurement values received for each connected calibration standard (see [0046], [0005] and [0062]).
As per claim 4, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above.
Ziegler further discloses:
wherein the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b) is configured to change a level of the DC bias signal (see [0052]-[0053]. The changes from DC to lower cut-off frequency DC to 10MHz);
wherein the processing unit (Fig. 3b, see the measuring-device 31a. Also see [0054])is configured to receive the measurement values for at least one of the calibration standards (see [0046]) for a plurality of DC bias signal levels (see [0046], [0005], and [0052]. Each of the frequencies for each of the plurality of standards and/or the spectrum from DC to the lower cut-off frequency that power levels).
As per claim 7, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above.
Ziegler further discloses:
wherein the bias tee (see [0054]) is arranged between the RF signal source and the measurement unit (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b. Also see [0054]), or wherein the bias tee is arranged between the measurement unit and the device port (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b and radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]).
Furthermore, pursuant to MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale, VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS, the Rearranging/shifting the position of the bias tee with respect to the other elements does not modify the operation of the sensor in a novel manner, therefore, components’ positions and/or rearrangement has no patentable weight (see “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Additionally, rearranging the component positions is an obvious design choice (see “In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Furthermore, if the aforesaid arrangements modify the bias tee and/or its functionality in an unpredictable manner, it should be added language claiming the aforesaid unpredictable manner in order to add patentability weight to the claim.
As per claim 8, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above.
Ziegler further discloses:
a DC signal generator which is configured to generate the DC bias signal with a determined voltage and/or current level (see [0052]-[0053]. The DC driver that generates the DC bias signals are carried);
wherein the DC signal generator is arranged within a housing of the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b) and is connected to the DC input port of the bias tee (see [0051]-[0052]. The implicit input-port where the DC bias signals are carried).
As per claim 15, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above.
Ziegler further discloses:
wherein the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b) is configured to apply the DC bias signal to the DC input port (see [0052]. The implicit input-port where the DC bias signals are carried) of the bias tee (see [0054]) if a calibration standard (see [0046]) other than a short or an open calibration standard is attached to the device port (Fig. 3b, see radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]).
As per claim 20, Ziegler, in the different embodiments, discloses:
A method for calibrating a test and/or measurement system, in particular a vector network analyzer (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Fig. 3b), comprising:
alternately connecting at least four different calibration standards (see [0046]) to a device port (Fig. 3b, see radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]) of the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b);
during the connection of each of the calibration standards (see [0046]):
generating an RF stimulus signal (Fig. 3b, the implicit RF source of the VNA that generates the implicit RF-signal received by port radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]),
forwarding the RF stimulus signal to the device port via a signal path (Fig. 3b, see the path between VNA and radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]) of the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b),
measuring the RF stimulus signal (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b. Also see [0054]) propagating to the device port (Fig. 3b, see radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]) via the signal path (Fig. 3b, see the path between VNA and radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]) and a measurement signal received at the device port (Fig. 3b, see radio-frequency-port 37b. Also see [0054]),
generating measurement values representing the respective measurement results of the RF stimulus signal and of the measurement signal (Fig. 3b, see the VNA 31b. Also see [0054]), and
receiving the measurement values at a processing unit (Fig. 3b, see the measuring-device 31a. Also see [0054]) of the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b);
wherein a DC bias signal is coupled into the signal path (see [0052]) during the connection of at least one of the calibration standards (see [0046]), but not during the connection of all of the calibration standards (Fig. 1c, it implicit when connecting the short standard. Also see [0042] and [0005]).
11. Claim(s) 3 and 9 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler in view of Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0006331 hereinafter mentioned as “Chen”).
As per claim 3, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above.
Ziegler further discloses:
wherein the processing unit is configured to receive the measurement values for at least one (Fig. 3b, see the measuring-device 31a. Also see [0054]), preferably for all, of the calibration standards for a plurality of frequencies and/or power levels within the respective range (see [0046], [0005], and [0052]. Each of the frequencies for each of the plurality of standards and/or the spectrum from DC to the lower cut-off frequency that power levels).
Ziegler does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the RF signal source is configured to sweep the RF stimulus signal over a predefined frequency range and/or a predefined power range.
However, Chen further discloses:
wherein the RF signal source is configured to sweep the RF stimulus signal over a predefined frequency range and/or a predefined power range (see [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “wherein the RF signal source is configured to sweep the RF stimulus signal over a predefined frequency range and/or a predefined power range” disclosed by Chen into Ziegler, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by detecting how the signal(s) changed or attenuated over the frequencies of the frequency sweep, thus, obtaining or measuring a transfer function (Chen, Paragraph [0128]).
As per claim 9, Ziegler discloses the test and/or measurement system of claim 1 as described above but does that said DC input port of the bias tee is connectable to an external DC signal generator which is arranged outside of said housing of the test and/or measurement system.
However, Chen further discloses:
wherein the DC input port of the bias tee is connectable to an external DC signal generator which is arranged outside of a housing of the test and/or measurement system (Fig. 3b, see the DC power supply 115 and test and/or measurement system/computing device 140 and/or VNA 120. Also see [0130]-[0131]);
wherein the test and/or measurement system is configured to control the external DC signal generator to generate the DC bias signal with a determined voltage and/or current level (see [0130]-[0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “wherein the RF signal source is configured to sweep the RF stimulus signal over a predefined frequency range and/or a predefined power range” disclosed by Chen into Ziegler, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by detecting how the signal(s) changed or attenuated over the frequencies of the frequency sweep, thus, obtaining or measuring a transfer function (Chen, Paragraph [0128]), and providing DC bias control voltages that are modulated frequencies over range (Chen, Paragraph [0131]).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim(s) 10-14, 16 and 18-19 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, and if further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons why said claim(s) would be allowable:
14. Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
a first directional coupler which is configured to forward at least a part of the RF stimulus signal from the signal path,
a second directional coupler which is configured to forward at least a part of the measurement signal from the signal path,
a first mixing stage which is configured to downconvert the part of the RF stimulus signal, and
a second mixing stage which is configured to downconvert the part of the measurement signal.
15. Claims 11-14 would be allowed if overcoming 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 above due to the fact that they are further limiting and depending on claim 10.
16. Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
at least a further device port;
at least a further signal path which is arranged to electrically connect the RF signal source to the further device port; and
at least a further measurement unit which is coupled to the further signal path, wherein the further measurement unit is adapted for measuring the RF stimulus signal propagating via the further signal path to the further device port and a further measure measurement signal received at the further device port.
17. Claims 18-19 would be allowed if overcoming 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 above due to the fact that they are further limiting and depending on claim 16.
18. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Anderson (Pub. No.: US 2020/0103485) teaches “A method is provided for calibrating a test system, including an RF source combined with a VNA connected to or embedded in a test instrument. The method includes connecting to a power meter at the test port; generating an RF signal at an RF source as an incident signal, and providing the incident signal to the power meter through the test port; measuring a forward power wave of the incident signal using a first receiver; measuring a reverse power wave of a reflected signal using a second receiver; measuring output power at the test port using the power meter; and calculating magnitude errors of the first receiver and the second receiver using the measured forward power wave, the measured reverse power wave, and the measured output power by the power meter, and determining magnitude error correction terms of the forward and reverse power waves to remove the magnitude errors” (Abstract).
b) Noujeim (Pub. No.: US 2011/0304318) teaches “linear transmission lines (NLTLs) to extend the bandwidth of an RF signal source. Extension of the RF bandwidth is achieved by means of multiplexing as well as frequency scaling. Frequency scaling tailors the performance of each NLTL for operation in a particular output frequency band(s) by adjusting the varactor spacing in the NLTL. Multiplexing amalgamates the output frequency bands of one or more NLTLs, thus resulting in a broad output frequency range” (Abstract).
c) Hancock (Pub. No.: US 2014/0107638) teaches “A calibration method and apparatus for surgical antennas arranged to deliver microwave radiation into biological tissue. An emitting region of the antenna is exposed to a plurality of calibration standards having different complex impedances at the treatment frequency. Calibration standards are created in a short-circuit-terminated waveguide cavity of variable length. In another variation, each calibration standard is a different mixture of liquids. Measurement of the magnitude and phase of signals reflected from the emitting region when exposed to the calibration standard permits calibration of the antenna” (Abstract or Paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858