DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 6/18/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-6 are pending.
- Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that claim 1 as amended overcomes the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons noted below:
- Claim 1 has been amended to recite in part:
“wherein the calibration standard is one of short standard, open standard, load standard, horizontal-thru standard, line standard, and cross-thru standard, a calibration accuracy of the electrical measurements applied to the calibration standard is increased by reduced effects of undesired electrical crosstalk in an error-network or in the calibration standard itself during the electrical measurements by simultaneously connecting to the multiple ports comprising the crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports;”
As amended, the claim doesn’t appear to describe structural characteristics of the claimed calibration standard, but rather it’s claimed capabilities. The recitation above reads as a statement of the effects on a calibration accuracy of electrical measurements that are applied to the calibration standard. The claim describes the increase in accuracy is a result of reduced effects of crosstalk in an error-network. However, the claim as recited doesn’t necessitate the claimed calibration standard to perform electrical measurements, the claim only requires the calibration standard to be able to receive the electrical measurements (as recited, the electrical measurements are applied to the calibration standard). Moreover, the claim states the undesired effects of electrical crosstalk are reduced in an error-network during the electrical measurements by simultaneously connecting to the multiple ports comprising the cross-talk-sensitive peer-ports. However, the claim as recited doesn’t mention what is “simultaneously connected” to the multiple ports. It appears the claim refers to an external device including terminals that are intended to be connected to the claimed calibration standard at the multiple ports. Consequently, the added limitations do not appear to limit the device as claimed, but rather describes the intended use of the device. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Lee teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of receiving the recited signals, the prior art anticipates the claim.
Accordingly, the newly presented rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 are presented below. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3, the article “a” is missing before the recitation “calibration interface”
In claim 2, line 4, the article “an” is missing before the recitation “applied signal”
In claim 2, line 5, the article “an” is missing before the recitation “applied mode”
In claim 2, line 6, the article “an” is missing before the recitation “applied frequency”
In claim 2, line 7, the article “a” is missing before the recitation “measured metric”
In claim 3, line 3, the article “an” is missing before the recitation “applied error-network”
In claim 3, line 4, the article “an” is missing before the recitation “applied DUT”
Claim 5 and 6 inherits the deficiencies in claims 2 or 3 noted above and is objected to for the same reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites in part:
“ a calibration accuracy of the electrical measurements applied to the calibration standard is increased by reduced effects of undesired electrical crosstalk in an error-network or in the calibration standard itself during the electrical measurements by simultaneously connecting to the multiple ports comprising the crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports”
The recitation above asserts that the undesired effects of electrical crosstalk are reduced in an error-network during the electrical measurements by simultaneously connecting to the multiple ports comprising the cross-talk-sensitive peer-ports. The claim as recited doesn’t describe what exactly is “simultaneously connected” to the multiple ports. It appears the claim refers to an external device which terminals that are intended to be connected to the claimed calibration standard at the multiple ports. If so, the claim should be amended to clearly describe what the claim describes as being “simultaneously connected” to the multiple ports.
Similarly, the claim doesn’t define the calibration standard as comprising an “error network”. It’s not clear if the reduction of undesired effects is accomplished by the calibration standard or by an external device that is connected to the calibration standard. Again, because the claim doesn’t clearly describe what is being “simultaneously connected”, it’s not possible to ascertain whether the claim attributes the reduction of undesired crosstalk to the calibration standard, or to an external device that is connected to the calibration standard.
The examiner also notes that lines 13-21 in claim 1, appear to provide definitions for the terms used in the body of the claim. However, the definitions do not provide clarification to the questions above. For example:
- In lines 13-14, regarding the recitation: “the term “error-network” is a modeled network that causes measurement errors that exist between a device under test (DUT) and ideal interfaces of the measurement equipment”. The “error-network” is defined as a “modeled network” and appears directed to a computer-based simulation/model. However, it’s not clear where the simulation takes place and/or what device performs it.
- In lines 15-16, regarding the recitation: “the term “calibration” is a mathematical operation that eliminates the effects of the network from raw measurements”. It’s not clear if the “mathematical operation” is performed by the calibration standard or by an external device.
- In lines 17-18, regarding the recitation: “the term “measured-ports” are ports on the calibration standard from which measurements are collected and used for extracting the error-network;”. The recitation appears to describe that the electrical measurements are “collected” by the ports. Thus, it would appear that the electrical measurements are not performed by the calibration standard, but rather the calibration standard simply receives the signals related to the electrical measurements. However, lines 10-11 describe the calibration accuracy is increased by reduced effects of crosstalk “during the electrical measurements”. Again, its not clear if the increase of calibration accuracy is a virtue of the manipulation of signals by external devices before the signals are inputted to the calibration standard, or if the calibration standard performs the manipulation of signals.
- In lines 19-21, regarding the recitation: “the term “crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports” are ports on the calibration standard that are electrically coupled to the measured-ports through the undesired electrical crosstalk in the error network or in the calibration standard itself”. The recitation appears to treat the “error network” as a tangible device that couples the measured-ports to the crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports. It’s not clear then, if the recited “error-network” is a tangible unit or a “modeled network” (computer simulated model) as recited in line 13.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites in part:
- “the calibration standard is applied to the electrical measurements with applied signal whose shape is sinusoidal-waves or rectangular-waves”
The recitation appears to describe the calibration standard as a signal, that is “applied” to the electrical measurements (values). It’s not clear then whether the calibration standard as recited refers to a signal, an algorithm or a tangible unit. It’s noted that claim 1 recites the calibration standard comprises “measured-ports” and “cross-sensitive peer-ports”. It’s not clear then, how a unit including tangible elements (ports) can be “applied to the electrical measurements with applied signal”.
Similarly, lines 5-7 appear to treat the calibration standard as a signal to be applied to the electrical measurements. It’s not clear then, in view of that recited in claim 1, if the claims are intended to cover a device (tangible unit) or a signal (non-tangible phenomenon).
Claims 3-6 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies in claim 1 and/or claim 2 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 9,971,010 by Lee et al., (Lee hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lee shows in Figure 2, a calibration standard for electrical measurements that simultaneously connects to multiple ports comprising:
measured-ports (left and right ports connected to standard impedance 1, standard impedance 2, standard impedance 3 and standard impedance 4) that are connected to electrical elements (when either is connected to RF port 2 and adaptor 8) where their electrical characteristics are fully or partially known (the standards include SOLT, TRL or LRL standards);
crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports (RF ports 2) that are terminated to matching impedances or nearby values (RF ports 2 are terminated to values in the standard impedance within the impedance circuit portion that they are connected to);
where the calibration standard is one of short standard, open standard, load standard, horizontal-thru standard, line standard, and cross-thru standard (see col. 2, lines 60-63), a calibration accuracy of the electrical measurements applied to the calibration standard is increased by reduced effects of undesired electrical crosstalk in an error-network or in the calibration standard itself during the electrical measurements by simultaneously connecting to the multiple ports comprising the crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports (the process is explained in col. 5, lines 11-30. Specifically, Lee explains that accuracy degree of the measured DUT characteristic data depends on the number of pieces of the error data used in the correction on state and an accuracy degree of each piece of the error data, facilitated among other aspects, the matching impedance in the RF ports 2);
the term “calibration” is a mathematical operation that eliminates the effects of the error-network from raw measurements (see col. 4, lines 51-53);
the term “measured-ports” are ports on the calibration standard from which measurements are collected and used for extracting the error-network (see for example, col. 5, lines 21-25); and
the term “crosstalk-sensitive peer-ports” (RF ports 2) are ports on the calibration standard that are electrically coupled to the measured-ports (ports connecting RF port 2 to either of the standard impedances 1-5 in the impedance circuit portion) through the undesired electrical crosstalk in the error-network or in the calibration standard itself (undesired electrical crosstalk generated within each standard, as such crosstalk is inherently present because no standard is perfectly noiseless or free of crosstalk).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the invention as explained in the Specification and as best understood by the examiner, is directed to a device that is used to calibrate an analyzer before the analyzer is connected to a device under test (DUT). The device, known in the art as “calibration standard”, consists of electrical components with known values that the analyzer is connected to. The analyzer measures the response of signals inputted into the calibration standard and adjusts/compensates for noise or crosstalk present in the connection between the calibration standard and the device under test. As best understood, it is the analyzer, not the calibration standard, that uses the measured values and compensates for crosstalk noise. The calibration standard itself doesn’t perform any computations or measurements. The calibration standard is only used to receive a signal and to collect a response (measurement) that is compared to known values. Once processed by the analyzer, signals inputted and collected from the DUT are corrected to compensate for the effects of crosstalk noise in signals collected from the DUT (while testing or characterizing the DUT), when the analyzer is connected to the DUT. However, claims 2 and 3 appears to treat the calibration standard as a signal or a mathematical operation to be applied to the electrical measurements (please refer to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 USC 112b above).
Assuming the applicant intended to describe that, the calibration standard receives signals while the analyzer perform electrical measurements on components in the calibration standard, the claim describes the intended use of the calibration standard. That is, the calibration standard is described in terms of the signals it receives (what it does or how it’s used), not in terms of what the calibration standard is. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Lee teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of receiving the recited signals, the prior art anticipates the claim.
As to claims 4-6, Lee teaches the use of the calibration standard using software within a controller (col. 4, lines 51-53). Software is comprised of a series of instructions in binary code that are manipulated mathematically to achieve a computation or perform an instruction.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The analysis below is consistent with the procedures outlined on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to an apparatus, a process or a composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A, PRONG ONE: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenomenon? – Yes. The claim is directed to a process of performing a mathematical operation that eliminates effects of error-network from electrical measurements. The process as recited is performed by a computational system (implemented by software or firmware) which manipulates the received data through computational algorithms to arrive at a result. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “implemented by software or firmware”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computational system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, PRONG TWO: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No. Although the claim recites the use of a calibration standard of claim 1, calibration standard is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic calibration device including electrical components that are subjected to electrical impulses and provide a signal response that is used in the mathematical operation. The reliance on the calibration standard as recited, adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, consistent with data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
- Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and the use of a calibration standard that constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The analysis below is consistent with the procedures outlined on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to an apparatus, a process or a composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A, PRONG ONE: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenomenon? – Yes. The claim is directed to a process of performing a mathematical operation that eliminates effects of error-network from electrical measurements. The process as recited is performed by a computational system (implemented by software or firmware) which manipulates the received data through computational algorithms to arrive at a result. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “implemented by software or firmware”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computational system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, PRONG TWO: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No. Although the claim recites the use of a calibration standard of claim 1, calibration standard is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic calibration device including electrical components that are subjected to electrical impulses and provide a signal response that is used in the mathematical operation. The reliance on the calibration standard as recited, adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, consistent with data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
- Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and the use of a calibration standard that constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The analysis below is consistent with the procedures outlined on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to an apparatus, a process or a composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A, PRONG ONE: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenomenon? – Yes. The claim is directed to a process of performing a mathematical operation that eliminates effects of error-network from electrical measurements. The process as recited is performed by a computational system (implemented by software or firmware) which manipulates the received data through computational algorithms to arrive at a result. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “implemented by software or firmware”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computational system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, PRONG TWO: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No. Although the claim recites the use of a calibration standard of claim 1, calibration standard is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic calibration device including electrical components that are subjected to electrical impulses and provide a signal response that is used in the mathematical operation. The reliance on the calibration standard as recited, adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, consistent with data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
- Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and the use of a calibration standard that constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 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 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights