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 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.
Claim 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "e.g.", equivalent to “for example”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey et al. (US 5,144,261, of record and hereinafter “Harvey”).
Claim 1: Harvey discloses an apparatus (Fig.1) comprising:
a plurality of resonant tunneling diode (RTD) elements (22; see col.2,51-67, which discloses providing the “synchronization of oscillator modules … further optimized by optically controlling RTDs incorporated in such oscillators” and col.4,63-64, which explicitly discloses utilizing the module in the phase array antenna discussed in col.2,51-67); and
a synchronization signal source (11) configured to provide an optical synchronization signal (modulating light; see col.4,14-15) to the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements (see col.4,49-59, where the light is provided to the RTD in order for the RTD to lock to the phase and frequency of the optic signal and col.2,51-67 and col.5,63-64).
Claim 14: Harvey discloses a method of manufacturing an apparatus (Fig.1) comprising a resonant tunneling diode (RTD) element (22; see col.4,14-15), said method comprising:
providing a plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements (22; see col.2,51-67, which discloses providing the “synchronization of oscillator modules … further optimized by optically controlling RTDs incorporated in such oscillators” and col.4,63-64, which explicitly discloses utilizing the module in the phase array antenna discussed in col.2,51-67);
providing a synchronization signal source (11) configured to provide an optical synchronization signal to the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements (see col.4,49-59, where the light is provided to the RTD in order for the RTD to lock to the phase and frequency of the optic signal and col.2,51-67 and col.5,63-64).
Claim 2: Harvey discloses wherein each of the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements is configured to oscillate at a predetermined resonance frequency (determined by the external capacitance and inductance; see col.4,49-53).
Claim 3: Harvey discloses the apparatus is configured to effect a phase synchronization of the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements by means of injection locking of the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements using the optical synchronization signal (see col.4,49-59 and col.2,51-67).
Claim 4: Harvey discloses wherein the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements configured in form of an array, wherein the array comprises at least one of: a) a one-dimensional array, b) a two-dimensional array, c) a three- dimensional array (see col.2,51-67, which discloses the RTD elements within an antenna array, which must be in one of a one-dimensional, two-dimensional, or three-dimensional array, there being no other possible options for an array).
Claim 6: Harvey discloses wherein the predetermined resonance frequency of the plurality of RTD elements is between 1 GHz and 100 THz (Harvey discloses the RTDs operating at “as high as 700 Gigahertz”; see col.5,57-62; see also Fig.6-9, which disclose a frequency of approximately 2.75 GHz).
Claim 11: Harvey discloses an illumination device configured to provide the optical synchronization signal to at least one resonant tunneling diode of the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements (assembly 11; see Fig.1).
Claim 12: Harvey discloses wherein the illumination device comprises at least one optical element (laser 29 and/or optical fiber 30; see col.4,34-36).
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.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey in view of Kalian et al. (US 7,545,324, hereinafter “Kalian”).
Claim 5: Harvey discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and discloses the RTD oscillators as a part of a phased array antenna (see col.2,51-67). Harvey does not disclose “more than 64 resonant tunneling diode elements”. Kalian discloses that a phase array antenna can include 70 transmit elements per subarray (see col.3, 19-29). Kalian discloses that by providing the 70 transmit elements per subarray, a desired beamsteering characteristic may be accomplished (see col.2,11-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided more than 64 resonant tunneling elements as a part of more than 64 transmit elements of a phased array antenna, as disclosed by Harvey and Kalian, in order to have achieved a desired beamsteering characteristic.
Claim 10: Harvey discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose at least one resonant tunneling diode … disposed on a carrier element”. Kalian discloses that transmitting modules of a similar phased array antenna may be provided on a carrier element (see 110/120/210/220 of Fig.3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a “carrier element”, e.g. a substrate, as an appropriate surface to mount transmission elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a carrier for the RTDs of the phased array antenna of Harvey, as disclosed by Kalian, as a suitable surface to mount transmission elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 13, and 15 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.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 to include 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: the prior art does not disclose within the overall context of the claims “wherein at least one resonant tunneling diode element of the plurality of resonant tunneling diode elements comprises a controllable phase shifter configured to modify a phase of the optical synchronization signal” of claim 7 and similar limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Johnson whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights