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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 02/27/2025 has beenconsidered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
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.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“modulation means for performing modulation with a millimetre wave carrier signal” in Claim 1, Line 9. The closest corresponding structure in the disclosure is Figure 1, element 16 and paragraph 0048, where element 16 is a modulator.
“mixing means to mix said millimetre wave…” in Claim 16, Lines 2-3. The closest corresponding structure is shown Figure 2 where signals from branches 8 and 9 are being “mixed” with signal from element 15 via element 16.
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 § 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 9614552) in view of Tam (US 11128375) and further in view of Sato (US 20240405874).
Consider Claim 13, Kim discloses a communication system operable in the millimetre-wave spectrum comprising: a transmitter arranged to emit a transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 4, element 10), wherein said transmitter is arranged to receive an input signal and comprises: an in-phase path and a quadrature path for said input signal (Figure 8, element 114 generates I and Q paths), modulation means for performing modulation (Figure 8, element 11is a modulation component) with a millimetre wave carrier signal (Figure 8, element 117 is a mm wave LO signal) and Column 5, Lines 50-51, where LO is in mm frequency band), amplifier means (Figure 8, elements 13a-13d), combiner means (Figure 8, element 115), but does not disclose wherein a polymer millimetre-wave fibre arranged to propagate said transmit millimetre-wave signal, a receiver arranged to receive the propagated transmit millimetre-wave signal, and said in-phase path and said quadrature path each comprise a pre-equalizing filter to filter said input signal prior to obtaining said transmit millimetre-wave signal by applying said filtered input signal to said modulator means, amplifier means and combiner means.
However, Sato discloses in-phase path and said quadrature path each comprise a pre-equalizing filter to filter said input signal prior to by applying said filtered input signal to said modulator means, amplifier means and combiner means (Figure 3 and Paragraghs 0041-0042 where element 111 outputs IQ signals that are input into pre-equalization element 112) but does not disclose a polymer millimetre-wave fibre arranged to propagate said transmit millimetre-wave signal. While the reference does not transmit a millimeter wave, the concept of pre-equalizing the IQ signals is still able to be used for millimeter wave signals to compensate for distortion of signals during millimeter wave transmission process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Sato into Kim to use a preequalizing filter to compensate for distortion in the signal.
However, Tam a polymer millimetre-wave fibre arranged to propagate said transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 2, element 32 and Column 5, Line 62-65, where element 32 comprises fluoropolymers), and a receiver arranged to receive the propagated transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 2, element 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kim and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission
Consider Claim 14, Kim does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Tam discloses the communication system as in claim 13, comprising a millimetre wave coupler for coupling said transmit millimetre-wave signal to said polymer millimetre-wave fibre (Figure 2, element 36 is a coupler that takes signal from element 24 and into waveguide element 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kim and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission
Consider Claim 16, Kim discloses wherein said modulator means comprise generator means to generate said millimetre wave carrier signal (Figure 8, element 117) and mixing means to mix said millimetre wave carrier signal with input signal in said in- phase path and quadrature path (Figure 8, where element 117 and signal from element 115, which contains IQ data, are mixed via element 116), respectively but does not disclose the filtered input signal means.
However, Sato discloses the filtered input signal means (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0041-0042 where element 111 outputs IQ signals that are input into pre-equalization element 112),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kim and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission
Consider Claim 20, Kim discloses the communication system as in claim 13, wherein the in-phase path and in the quadrature path, respectively, are combined prior to performing said modulation with said millimetre wave carrier signal (Figure 8, element 115 whre IQ signals are combined prior to modulation) but does not disclose the filtered input signals.
However, Sato discloses the filtered input signal means (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0041-0042 where element 111 outputs IQ signals that are input into pre-equalization element 112),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kim and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission
Consider Claim 21, while Kim does not explicitly disclose a conversion block, Figure 8, element 116 discloses a combiner which adds quadrature signals. The I (in-phase) and Q(quadrature) signals are 90 degrees out of phase between each other. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that when element 116 adds these two signals that their phases and respective amplitudes will be added together. However, Kim does not disclose filtered input signals.
However, Sato discloses the filtered input signal means (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0041-0042 where element 111 outputs IQ signals that are input into pre-equalization element 112),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kim and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Consider Claim 22, Kim discloses the communication system as in claim 21, comprising said phase is applied to a phase shifter and said amplitude is applied to said amplifier means (Figure 8, where elements 12a-n are phase shifters and elements 13a-n are amplifiers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kim and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sato in view of Tam and in further view of Jenkins (US 9065601).
Consider Claim 15, Kim, Sato, and Tam do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jenkins discloses the communication system as in claim 13, further comprising a clock and data recovery block to derive a clock signal of said input signal (Figure 4, element 401).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Jenkins into Kim, Sato, and Tam to reduce jitter in signal.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sato in view of Tam and in further view of Agrawal (US 20230318638).
Consider Claim 23, Kim, Sato, and Tam do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Agrawal discloses the communication system as in claim 13, wherein said pre-equalizing filters are digital filters (Figure 1C, element 175).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Agrawal into Kim, Sato, and Tam to more accurately equalize signals for distortion.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sato in view of Tam and in further view of Guzik (9344301).
Consider Claim 24, Kim, Sato, and Tam do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Guzki discloses the communication system as in claim 13, wherein said pre-equalizing filters are mixed-signal filters (Figure 2, where element 31 has multiple inputs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Guzik into Kim, Sato, and Tam to more accurately equalize signals for distortion.
Claim(s) 13-14 (alternative), 16 (alternative), and 17 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 9209915) in view of Tam (US 11128375) and further in view of Sato (US 20240405874).
Consider Claim 13 (alternative), Kobayashi discloses a communication system operable in the millimetre-wave spectrum comprising: a transmitter arranged to emit a transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 1, element 1), wherein said transmitter is arranged to receive an input signal and comprises: an in-phase path and a quadrature path for said input signal (Figure 1, element 115 generates I and Q signals), modulation means for performing modulation (Figure 1, element 17 is a modulator) with a millimetre wave carrier signal (Figure 1, element 16is a mm wave LO signal) and Column 6, Lines 16-17, where LO is in mm frequency band), amplifier means (Figure 1, element 16), combiner means (Figure 1, element 176), but does not disclose wherein a polymer millimetre-wave fibre arranged to propagate said transmit millimetre-wave signal, a receiver arranged to receive the propagated transmit millimetre-wave signal, and said in-phase path and said quadrature path each comprise a pre-equalizing filter to filter said input signal prior to obtaining said transmit millimetre-wave signal by applying said filtered input signal to said modulator means, amplifier means and combiner means.
However, Sato discloses in-phase path and said quadrature path each comprise a pre-equalizing filter to filter said input signal prior to by applying said filtered input signal to said modulator means, amplifier means and combiner means (Figure 3 and Paragraghs 0041-0042 where element 111 outputs IQ signals that are input into pre-equalization element 112) but does not disclose a polymer millimetre-wave fibre arranged to propagate said transmit millimetre-wave signal. While the reference does not transmit a millimeter wave, the concept of pre-equalizing the IQ signals is still able to be used for millimeter wave signals to compensate for distortion of signals during millimeter wave transmission process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Sato into Kobayashi to use a preequalizing filter to compensate for distortion in the signal.
However, Tam a polymer millimetre-wave fibre arranged to propagate said transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 2, element 32 and Column 5, Line 62-65, where element 32 comprises fluoropolymers), and a receiver arranged to receive the propagated transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 2, element 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kobayashi and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Consider Claim 14 (alternative), Kobyashi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Tam discloses the communication system as in claim 13, comprising a millimetre wave coupler for coupling said transmit millimetre-wave signal to said polymer millimetre-wave fibre (Figure 2, element 36 is a coupler that takes signal from element 24 and into waveguide element 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kobayashi and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission
Consider Claim 16 (alternative), Kobayashi discloses wherein said modulator means comprise generator means to generate said millimetre wave carrier signal (Figure 1, element 16) and mixing means to mix said millimetre wave carrier signal with input signal in said in- phase path and quadrature path (Figure 1, where element 16 IQ output from elements 171 and 172 are mixed via element 174) respectively but does not disclose the filtered input signal means.
However, Sato discloses the filtered input signal means (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0041-0042 where element 111 outputs IQ signals that are input into pre-equalization element 112),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kobayashi and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Consider Claim 17, Kobayashi discloses the communication system as in claim 16, wherein said combiner means are adapted for combining the mixed signals in said in-phase path and quadrature path to obtain said transmit millimetre-wave signal (Figure 1, element 176 combines signal after modulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kobayashi and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Consider Claim 18, Kobayashi discloses the communication system as in claim 17, wherein said amplifier means are adapted to amplify the combined mixed signals before said transmit millimetre-wave signal is obtained (Figure 1, element 18 amplifies combined signal before being sent to element 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kobayashi and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Consider Claim 19, Kobayashi does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Tam discloses the communication system as in claim 17, wherein said amplifier means and said mixing means are part of a RF digital-to-analog converter structure (Figure 3, where element 94 are DACs that are in line with mixer element 110 and amplifier element 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Tam into Kobayashi and Sato to provide the polymer-based fiber for low signal loss during transmission.
Claim(s) 15 (alternative) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Sato in view of Tam and in further view of Jenkins (US 9065601).
Consider Claim 15 (alternative), Kobayashi, Sato, and Tam do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Jenkins discloses the communication system as in claim 13, further comprising a clock and data recovery block to derive a clock signal of said input signal (Figure 4, element 401).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Jenkins into Kobayashi, Sato, and Tam to reduce jitter in signal.
Claim(s) 23 (alternative) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Sato in view of Tam and in further view of Agrawal (US 20230318638).
Consider Claim 23 (alternative), Kobayashi, Sato, and Tam do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Agrawal discloses the communication system as in claim 13, wherein said pre-equalizing filters are digital filters (Figure 1C, element 175).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Agrawal into Kobayashi, Sato, and Tam to more accurately equalize signals for distortion.
Claim(s) 24 (alternative) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Sato in view of Tam and in further view of Guzik (9344301).
Consider Claim 24 (alternative), Kobayashi, Sato, and Tam do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Guzik discloses the communication system as in claim 13, wherein said pre-equalizing filters are mixed-signal filters (Figure 2, where element 31 has multiple inputs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Guzik into Kobayashi, Sato, and Tam to more accurately equalize signals for distortion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM EST.
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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights