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.
Claims 3, 8, 9, and 14 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.
With respect to claim 3, the limitation “or the second reference material” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites only “a first reference material.” Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 8 and 14, the limitation “predetermined operational data of the system” lacks antecedent basis. No “system” has been disclosed since claim 8 is a method and claim 14 is a computer program product. It is unclear whether “the system” refers to the claimed method arrangement, the unclaimed system of claim 1, or some other system. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 9, the limitation “a pre-operation step,” and further “and/or wherein the calibration step comprises” lacks antecedent basis. There is no prior recitation of a “calibration step.” Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims encompass transitory forms of signal transmission.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the claim is directed to “a computer program produce for, when executed on a processor….” The claim is not limited to a non transitory computer readable medium. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “ a computer program product” encompasses software per se and/or computer programs embodied on transitory propagating signals, which are non statutory. (see In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 and MPEP 2106.03).
The specification defines “data carrier” as “any medium that can carry, store, or transmit data,” expressly including “non-physical media such as cloud storage services or data transmission over networks” and examples include “a downloadable software package from an online repository.” That definition confirms that the claimed program product carrier subject matter is not limited to non-transitory tangible media.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourkazemi U.S. Patent #11,085,874 in view of Nelson et al. U.S. Patent #9,772,353, McEwan U.S. Patent #5,757,320 (McEwan ‘320), and McEwan U.S. Patent #6,466,168 (McEwan ‘168).
With respect to claim 1 and 8, Pourkazemi discloses a system for nondestructive analysis of a test material comprising:
An electromagnetic signal generator configured for repetitively generating an electromagnetic wave of substantially one frequency wherein the electromagnetic wave comprises a transient part (Claim 14 , abstract, “transient continuous wave”, irradiation source 110, single frequency generator 202, Figure 4-5, Col.17, l 1-4, radiation in the GHz-Thz band)
And for emitting the electromagnetic wave using a transmit antenna (Col.17, l 60- Col.18, l 10, Figure 5, transmitter antenna, Col.18, l 1-8, power divider 204, switch 210, amplifier 214 to transmitter antenna)
A sampling module configured for repetitive equivalent time / multi-shot sampling of transient signals from a receive antenna (Claim 16, Col.17, l 8-28, sampling system for single shot or multiple shot sampling, sampling scope that “captures a set of non-contiguous samples spaced in time” and “building up the waveform ….over successive acquisitions” = equivalent time sample, Figure 5, Col.18, l 1-10, delay creator 208 and sampler 212)
To obtain samples of reflections from a reference material and from the test material (Figure 19, Col.21, l 1-30, AIR/perfect metal REF/ SAM calibration and measurement signals; Col. 12, l 5-20, perfect metal reflector = reference material)
A processing module configured for processing the samples using predetermined operational calibration data of the system and for deriving amplitude bearing reflection information usable for characterization (Claims 14 and 15, Col.17, l 30-55, processor/ deconvolution unit, Col.21, l 1-30, REF/AIR operational calibration data; Col.21, l 10-20, referring to the phase of the reflection signals for REF vs SUT alignment)
However, Pourkazemi fails to disclose: (i)emitting the electromagnetic wave using a first transmit antenna in a first channel and using a second transmit antenna in a second channel different from the first, (ii)a differential measurement module configured for repetitive equivalent time sampling of transient signals from a first receive antenna using a first clock signal and from a second receive antenna using a second clock signal, wherein the first clock signal and the second clock signal are correlated, to obtain a set of reference samples from the first channel when the first receive antenna receives reflections from a first reference material positioned in front of the first transmit antenna and to obtain data samples from the second channel when the second receive antenna receives reflections from the test material positioned in front of the second transmit antenna, (iii)wherein the sampling is asynchronous with the generated electromagnetic wave and (iv)a processing module configured for determining phase information from the set of reference sample-se of the first channel using predetermined operational data of the system and for converting the data samples into synchronous data samples comprising amplitude and phase information using that phase information and the predetermined operational data.
Regarding (iii), Pourkazemi’s Figure 4 and 5 architecture derives sampling timing from the irradiation path via power divider 204 and delay creator 208 (Col.18, l 1-10), i.e. synchronized /triggered sampling. Applicant’s own background and Figure 1 admits this synchronized TRM architecture as prior art and recognizes that synchronization requires complex and expensive electronics that become increasingly difficult at higher frequencies.
Nelson teaches an equivalent time sampling technique for reconstructing a stationary amplitude/phase representation of a signal from asynchronously related sampled data and a reference channel (Abstract, Claims 1 and 4) comprising:
Simultaneously sampling a data modulated carrier signal and a reference (unmodulated carrier/ quadrature phases of the carrier) where the modulating signal is asynchronous with the modulated carrier (Claim 1, Col.1, l 25-26, 45-46, Col.1, l 52-67, Col.2, l 25-42)
Phase calculation circuitry/ calculating phases from the reference channel samples (Claim 1, 4, Col.1, l 62-67, Col.3, l 40-45, Phase calculation circuitry 350 = determining phase information from the set of reference samples)
Waveform reconstruction circuitry converting / selecting the data samples into stationary representation comprising amplitude information as if the carrier has been synchronous using the calculated phase information (Claim 1, 4, Col.1, l 65- Col.2, l 3, Col.4, l 1-20, Figure 5 and 6, reconstruction = converting the data samples into synchronous data samples comprising amplitude and phase information)
The device being an equivalent time sampling oscilloscope (Claim 2)
McEwan ‘320 teaches an equivalent time sampling ultrawideband radar in which a physical object is kept in the radar field and measured concurrently with the target so that sample signal timing/ drift is calibrated and cancelled (Abstract, Figures 4A-4B, Claim 18, 36, 51, 75) comprising:
A fiducial object 203 placed within the field of the radar 200 produces echo 206 at a known position, concurrently with target echo 207 from object 208 (Figure 4A-4B, Col.6, l 45-65 fiducial object 203 = first reference material / physical reflector measured concurrently with the test target)
McEwan ‘168 teaches a differential dual-receiver equivalent time sampling radar / reflectometry architecture with correlated sampling clocks (Abstract, Claim 1, 5, 9) comprising:
A first receiver sampling a measurement time of flight path and a second receiver sampling a reference path, the two receivers having common/ identical receive gate timing (Abstract, “simultaneously sampling a reference signal line and a free space time of flight RF burst signal using separate sampling receivers having common sample timing”, claim 1, first and second receivers responsive to the same receive timing signal, Col.2, l 55-65, gate pulses to both receivers carry identically the same clock pulses = first clock signal and a second clock signal are correlated / common sample timing)
Dual correlated clocks / phase-slip ETS timing (Claim 5, first and second clock oscillators with small frequency offset Δ providing stroboscopic equivalent=time sampling, Col.,3 l 1-20)
Transmit and receive antennas on the measurement path (Claim 5, 9)
Differentially configured sampling receivers that cancel common mode timing skew drift between reference and measurement paths (Abstract, Col.2, l 55- Col.4, l 5, summary, differentially configured sampling receivers = differential measurement module)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the transient radar system of Pourkazemi to Nelson’s asynchronous equivalent-time sampling with phase recovery from a simultaneously acquired reference channel, keep a physical reference reflector in the measurement concurrently for sample signal drift calibration as taught by McEwan ‘320 including providing a first TX/RX antenna channel directed at the physical reference material and a second TX/RX antenna channel directed at the test material. Applicant’s background expressly recognizes that synchronized TRM becomes costly and limited at higher frequencies, while Nelson teaches that asynchronous sampling plus reference-channel phase calculation reconstructs a coherent amplitude/phase waveform without requiring the carrier and sampling/trigger paths to be phase-locked (Nelson, claim 1, Col.1, l 52-67) McWan1 teaches keeping a physical reflector in the measurement concurrently so that drift/timing errors cancel (Col.6, l 50-65, Claim 18, 36, 51, 75) which directly maps onto Pourkazemi’s already used metal reflector culture. McEwan ‘168 teaches placing the reference and measurement on separate correlated receivers to common-mode drift jitters cancel (abstract, Col,2 l 55- Col.3, l 5). Placing the reference reflector on its own TX/RX channel keeps its echo from overlapping/interfering with reflections from the test material- a known problem of in-scene reference reflectors. The combination predictably preserves Pourkazemi’s REF/AIR operational calibration data while enabling concurrent reference-channel phase recovery as in Nelson, yielding the claimed dual-channel asynchronous TRM system with conversion of data samples into synchronous amplitude-and-phase samples using phase information from the reference channel samples and predetermined operational data with predictable results and no change in Pourkazemi’s underlying TRM deconvolution purpose.
With respect to claim 2, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above In addition, Pourkazemi discloses:
Obtaining predetermined operational/calibration data by measuring reflections from a reference material (perfect metal REF) and related calibration signals (Figure 19, Col.21, l 1-30, REF and AIR calibration, Col.2,1 l 5-20, perfect metal reflector = reference material)
McEwan ‘320 discloses:
a physically fiducial object measured concurrently with the target for sample-signal calibration (Figure 4A-4B, Col.6, l 45-65, Claim 18, 36, 51, 75)
McEwan ‘168 discloses:
dual receivers simultaneously sampling a reference path and a measurement path with a common gate timing (Abstract, claims 1 and 5)
However, Pourkazemi alone measures REF sequentially on a single path rather than obtaining concurrent first and second sets of predetermined reference samples from two channels with first and second reference materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing once the dual channel architecture of McEwan ‘168 and the concurrent physical reflector teaching of McEwan ‘320 are adopted in Pourkazemi’s TRM system as set for in claim 1, to obtain at least part of the predetermined operational data by placing reference materials on both channels during a pre-operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done so to characterize inter-channel delay/drift (McEwan ‘168’s differential purpose) and to establish known position reference echoes on both channels for sample-signal calibration as in McEwan ‘320 (Col.6, l 50-65) while retaining Pourkazemi’s metal reflector calibration culture (Figure 19, Col.2, l 5-20) with predictable results.
With respect to claim 3, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses that the reference material is an ideal/perfect metal reflector (Col.21, l 5-20).
With respect to claim 4, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses obtaining crosstalk / empty-path calibration samples when no material is positioned in front of the transmit/receive antennas, coined the AIR signal in combination with reference-material calibration (Figure 19a, Col.21, l 1-10, Col.21, l 50-60, subtracting air leakage).
However, Pourkazemi fails to disclose obtaining a third set of predetermined reference samples from the first channel with the first reference material together with a set of predetermined crosstalk samples from the second channel with no material positioned in front of the second transmit antenna because Pourkazemi acquires its AIR and REF calibration signals sequentially on a single transmit/receive path. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to obtain at least part of the predetermined operational data from the second channel since as disclosed above with respect to claim 1, preserving Pourkazemi’s crosstalk/leakage correction while keeping the reference on a separate channel would have predictable improvement in TRM accuracy.
With respect to claim 5 and 12, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses:
the processing module/processor is configured for deriving from the reflection samples of the test material, geometric information and/or electromagnetic properties of one or more layers of the test material (Claim 1, 14, abstract, Col.17, l 50-55).
With respect to claim 6, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses that the electromagnetic wave has a frequency between 0.1 GHz and 100 THz (Claim 7, Col.17, l 1-4)
With respect to claim 7, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, McEwan ‘168 discloses that the first and second receivers share the same receive gate/clock pulses (Abstract, “common sample timing”, Claim 5, 9, both receivers responsive to the receive gate signal, Col.2, l 55-65). Pourkazemi likewise uses a single shared timing source from the irradiation path (Figure 5, Col.18, l 1-10).
However, Pourkazemi fails to disclose a first clock signal for the first receive channel and a second clock signal for the second receive channel that is the same as the first.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a common gate, or same clock signal for both first and second receivers, as in McEwan ‘168 in order to maximize common-mode rejection of timing drift between the reference and measurement channels (abstract, Col.2, l 55-65) which is a predictable simplification of the correlated dual-clock arrangement described with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 above.
With respect to claim 10, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above.
In addition, Pourkazemi discloses:
Correlating /aligning calibration and measurement waveforms to identify timing features such as the “nose” of the reflection and to apply phase/attenuation corrections (Col.21, l 30-65, Figures 8,9,17)
However, Pourkazemi fails to disclose calibrating timing of the obtained samples by calculating envelopes of the repetitive transient signals and aligning those envelopes.
McEwan ‘320 discloses using a known-position fiducial echo for precise calibration of the sample signal and cancellation of timing drift (Col.6, l 50-65, Claim 18, 36, 51, 75, fiducial echo at known position = timing calibration of the sample signal).
McEwan ‘168 discloses that equivalent time receivers commonly include amplifiers, filters, and envelope detections (Col.2, l 45-50).
Nelson discloses collecting large numbers of asynchronous samples and selecting them by phase for reconstruction (Claim 1, Col.3, l 35-45, Figure 5).
McEewan1, McEwan ‘168, and Nelson fail to clearly teach envelope calculation and envelope alignment as the recited means of timing calibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to calibrate by way of envelope calculations. Aligning repetitive waveforms by envelope or correlation to remove timing drift is a routine signal processing technique in sampling oscilloscopes, TDR, and radar processing. It is a predictable extension of Pourkazemi’s own correlation based alignment of REF/AIR/SAM curves (Col.21, l 30-65) once McEwan ‘168’s duel channels are adopted. The motivation for those of ordinary skill in the art would come in order to keep the reference and data channels temporarily aligned for Nelson’s phase based reconstruction with predictable results. Official Notice is being taken that envelope based alignment of repetitive RF/transient waveforms for timing calibration was well known before the effective filing date.
With respect to claim 11, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘168, and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses:
Smoothing and filtering captured signals to improve processing quality (Col.17, l 44-47, Col.21, l 30-35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing Pourkazemi fail to specifically disclose removing outliers from the obtained samples.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to discard anomalous samples from a random/sequential equivalent-time sample cloud as a routine data cleaning step that predictably improves fit quality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Pourkazemi’s own teaching to smooth noisy captured curves before deconvolution. Official Notice is taken that outlier removal from sampled measurement data was well known.
With respect to claim 13, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses:
Deconvolution of the data samples into different contributions to the reflected part of the electromagnetic wave stemming from the reflection of the electromagnetic wave at or the transmission through, one or more interfaces of the layer based structure, based on a superposition model of the different contributions in the transient part of the reflected electromagnetic wave (Claim 2, Col.17, 30-50, deconvolution unit and superposition model, Col.21-22, path-contribution equations)
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Pourkazemi in view of Nelson, McEwan ‘320 and McEwan ‘168 discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 8 above. In addition, Pourkazemi discloses:
A computer program product programmed for receiving captured sample information and for deriving geometric/EM properties of a layer based structure from transient reflection samples (Col.17-18)
However, Pourkazemi fails to disclose a computer program product that receives a set of reference samples and a set of data samples obtained by asynchronous repetitive equivalent time sampling from a first receive antenna using a first clock signal and from a second receive antenna using a correlated second clock signal, determines phase information from the reference samples and converts the data samples into synchronous amplitude and phase data samples using that phase information and predetermined operational data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing implement the processing of claim 1 and 8 and a computer program product as in claim 14 and 15, since all the processing steps are addressed above with respect to claims 1 and 8 and implementing a known method in a computer program is within ordinary skill in the art.
Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nelson U.S. Patent #7,746,058 discloses sequential equivalent time sampling with an asynchronous reference clock (Claims 1-4)
Peeters EP 3121611 discloses a time corrected TDR instrument that samples a reflected pulse and an asynchronous reference clock (Claims 1, 5, 9)
Jungerman U.S. Patent #6,654,160 discloses a random sampling with simultaneous sampling of a clock reference and data signals to determine the phase (Claims 1,7,8,13)
Nakagawa et al. “Jitter Correction for asynchronous optical sampling…” discloses ASOPS that simultaneously records a THz waveform and a calibration signal, reconstructs the phase of the calibration signal and corrects the time axis for async sampling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
