DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, “modulating In Phase” in line 2 should be changed to –modulating In Phase signal--.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the DC restored modulating Quadrature Phase signal" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If this limitation is referred to the limitation “a DC restored modulating Quadrature signal” recited in lines 10-11, it is suggested changing this limitation in lines 10-11 to -- a DC restored modulating Quadrature Phase signal--.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation "the signal sideband signal" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the applicant intends to claim, “the single sideband signal”, the applicant needs to clarify if “the single sideband signal” is referred to “a first single sideband signal” (see line 21 in claim 1), “a second sideband signal” (see line 10 in claim 3), or “a third single sideband signal” (see line 14 in claim 3).
Regarding claim 7, it is not clear “the single sideband signal” recited in line 2 is referred to “a first single sideband signal” (see line 21 in claim 1), “a second sideband signal” (see line 10 in claim 3), or “a third single sideband signal” (see line 14 in claim 3).
Regarding claim 8,
the limitation "the output signal of the first pulsewidth modulator" in line 50 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change the limitation to --an output signal of the first pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the second pulsewidth modulator" in line 52 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the second pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the third pulsewidth modulator" in line 54 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the third pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the fourth pulsewidth modulator" in line 56 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the fourth pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the fifth pulsewidth modulator" in line 58 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the fifth pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the sixth pulsewidth modulator" in line 60 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the six pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the seventh pulsewidth modulator" in line 62 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the seventh pulsewidth modulator--;
the limitation "the output signal of the eighth pulsewidth modulator" in line 64 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested changing the limitation to --an output signal of the eighth pulsewidth modulator--.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “combining at four pulsewidth modulated signals” in line 9 is not understood. If this limitation is referred to “at least four pulsewidth modulated signals” recited in line 6 of claim 18, it is suggested changing this limitation to –the at least four pulsewidth modulated signals--.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, it appears the terms “a/the fundamental frequency” (see line 10 and line 11 in claim 18, and in line 4 of claim 20) and “a/the fundamental carrier frequency” (see line 3 in Claim 19, line 4 in claim 19, and line 3 in claim 20) are directed to the same limitation. If they are the same, the applicant needs to use the same term for the same limitation. Further, claim 18 indicates the combination of the at least four pulsewidth modulated signals provides a single sideband signal at a fundamental frequency and a single sideband signal of an opposite sideband at a harmonic of the fundamental frequency. However, claim 19 which depends on claim 18, indicates the combination of four pulsewidth modulated signals provides single sideband signal with carrier signal at a fundamental carrier frequency and a single sideband signal with carrier signal of an opposite sideband at a harmonic of the fundamental carrier frequency. This is inconsistent with its parent claim 18. Similarly, claim 20, which also depends on claim 18, indicates the combination of eight pulsewidth modulated signals provides single sideband signal suppressed carrier signal at a fundamental carrier frequency and a single sideband signal suppressed carrier signal of an opposite sideband at a harmonic of the fundamental frequency. This is also inconsistent with its parent claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chieh M Fan whose telephone number is (571)272-3042. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/CHIEH M FAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights