DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 9-14, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta (US 2012/0212383 A1) in view of Boguslavskij (US 2007/0298712 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sengupta teaches an intercoupled THz radiating array (Fig. 9D, DAR array, [0145] DAR devices, THz sources), comprising:
a plurality of radiating array elements (Fig. 9D, DAR1~4), wherein each array element comprises an oscillator core configured to oscillate at a fundamental frequency ([0147] a fundamental oscillation at a design frequency), wherein the oscillator core of each array element is locked to an adjacent oscillator core through a coupling network comprising T-lines (Figs. 15, 16A, 16B [0169] the t-lines branch out into two matched differential t-lines with
Z
o
o
= 50 Ω and distribute the differential signals to drive eight single-ended injection-locked divide-by-2's. The inputs of the divide-by-2's are matched to 50 Ω for maximum power transfer to ensure wide locking range over process variations and frequency tuning range.); and
a transistor coupled to the oscillator core of each array element and configured to produce harmonics of the fundamental frequency from a signal from the oscillator core (Fig. 16A, [0168] The fundamental frequency of the radiating elements is injection locked to the tripler output, thus controlling the second harmonic of the DAR,).
Sengupta does not explicitly teach a p-i-n based intercoupled THz radiating array comprising: a p-i-n diode coupled to the oscillator core.
Boguslavskij teaches a p-i-n based radiating circuit comprising a p-i-n diode coupled to an oscillator core (Figure, [0016] PIN diode pairs D2, D3, D4 and D5 connected to oscillating circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the p-i-n diodes of Boguslavskij to the oscillator circuit of Sengupta in order for protection of the circuit (Boguslavskij, [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij.
Sengupta in view Boguslavskij of further teaches the array, further comprising an antenna coupled to the p-i-n diode (Boguslavskij, [0007], Sengupta, Fig. 8, [0154] two antennas) and radiating at least one harmonic of the fundamental frequency (Sengupta [0168] The fundamental frequency of the radiating elements is injection locked to the tripler output, thus controlling the second harmonic of the DAR, which is the radiation frequency around 280 GHz.).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij.
Sengupta further teaches the antenna wherein the antenna is tuned to maximize power radiated at a certain harmonic of the fundamental frequency ([0169] the t-lines branch out into two matched differential t-lines with
Z
o
o
= 50 Ω and distribute the differential signals to drive eight single-ended injection-locked divide-by-2's. The inputs of the divide-by-2's are matched to 50 Ω for maximum power transfer to ensure wide locking range over process variations and frequency tuning range.).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij.
Sengupta further teaches the antenna, wherein the antenna is an on-chip antenna (Figs. 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij.
Sengupta further teaches the array, wherein a T-line network that connects the oscillator to each other forms a loop antenna at the fundamental frequency enabling synchronization by an external source (Fig. 38, [0138] frequency synchronization, T-line network).
Regarding claim 11, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 21, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 10. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta (US 2012/0212383 A1) in view of Boguslavskij (US 2007/0298712 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han’393 (US 2015/0288393 A1).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij.
Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij does not explicitly teach the oscillator core, wherein the oscillator core comprises a pair of oscillators.
Han’393 teaches an oscillator core, wherein the oscillator core comprises a pair of oscillators (Fig. 1, [0057] differential core oscillator 20 pairs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Han to the teachings of Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij in order to simultaneously achieve optimum conditions for fundamental oscillation and 2nd-harmonic generation, and to achieve broad radiation bandwidth (Han’393, Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta (US 2012/0212383 A1) in view of Boguslavskij (US 2007/0298712 A1) and Han’393 (US 2015/0288393 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Han’166 (US 2018/0041166 A1).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 4 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij and Han’393.
Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij and Han’393 does not explicitly teach the oscillator, wherein the oscillator is Colpitts oscillator that provides differential oscillation.
Han’166 teaches an oscillator, wherein the oscillator is Colpitts oscillator that provides differential oscillation ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Han’166 to the teachings of Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij and Han’393 in order to provide enhanced efficiency and intrinsic radiation capability (Han’166, [0094]).
Regarding claim 16, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta (US 2012/0212383 A1) in view of Boguslavskij (US 2007/0298712 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boppel (US 2014/0091376 A1).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij.
Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij does not explicitly teach the antenna, wherein the antenna is a folded dipole antenna.
Boppel teaches an antenna, wherein the antenna is a folded dipole antenna ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the folded dipole antenna of Boppel to the teachings of Sengupta in view of Boguslavskij in order to a device for detecting electromagnetic radiation in the THz frequency range with an increased flexibility in the circuit design and an improved robustness (Boppel, [0014]).
Regarding claim 19, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 17, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a THz radiating array, wherein a cascode transistor drives the p-i-n diode with the output of the oscillator, wherein the cascode transistor provides isolation between the p-i-n diode and the oscillator core, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a THz radiating array, wherein a biasing current of an oscillator is set by adjusting Vbe that determines an oscillation frequency through changing transistor base-emitter capacitance, wherein the THz radiating array further comprises an emitter comprising a resistor in conjunction with a quarter-length T-line, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is objected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is objected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844