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, 7 and 13 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.
The term “lumped” in claims 3, 7 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lumped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “lumped” pertaining to inductors is not well known in the art and will therefore be interpreted as a plurality of inductors.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Protiva et al. (“High Power Monocycle Pulse Generator for Through-the-Wall Radar Transmitter”, 2009 Asia Pacific Microwave Conference, pg. 2324-2327 and Protiva hereinafter.)
Regarding claim 1, Protiva discloses [fig. 1] a circuit comprising: an input port [in]; an output port [out]; and a first conductive path [top conductive path comprising SRD+pulse forming circuit] and a second conductive path [bottom conductive path comprising SRD+pulse forming circuit] arranged in parallel [as shown] and connecting the input port and the output port [as shown], the first conductive path comprising a first pulse compressor [driver+pulse forming circuit diagram shown in fig. 2, with pg. 2325 disclosing “The pulse width is adjustable down to a few nanoseconds by a timing circuit consisting of R2, C2 and T2. The driving waveform passes through a coupling capacitor C3 to the SRD pulser”], and the second conductive path comprising a second pulse compressor and a delay element [a second driver+pulse forming circuit including the delay line shown in fig. 2].
Regarding claim 2, Protiva discloses further wherein the first pulse compressor comprises a first non-linear transmission line (NLTL) [pulse shaping is inherently nonlinear] comprising one or more step recovery diodes (SRDs) [SRD shown in fig. 2].
Regarding claim 4, Protiva discloses [fig. 2] further wherein the first NLTL comprises four sections. Comprising:
A first section: T2, R2, C2, T2, R1 and C1
A second section: T1 and R3
A third section: L1 and DC
A fourth section: delay line and SRD
Regarding claim 5, Protiva discloses [fig. 2] further wherein the first NLTL comprises five or more sections. Comprising:
A first section: T2, C2
A second section: R2, C1, T2 and C1
A third section: T1 and R3
A fourth section: L1 and DC
A fifth section: Delay line and SRD
Regarding claim 6, Protiva discloses further wherein the second pulse compressor comprises a second NLTL comprising one or more SRDs [pulse shaping is inherently nonlinear].
Regarding claim 11, Protiva discloses further wherein the delay element comprises a variable delay network [pg. 2325 disclosing “The pulse width of the output Gaussian pulse is proportional to the delay line length and can be flexibly adjusted by changing the position of the Schottky diode (BAT15) on the delay line.”].
Regarding claim 12, Protiva discloses further wherein the delay element comprises an NLTL [the second driver+pulse forming circuit including the delay line shown in fig. 2].
Regarding claim 15, Protiva discloses further comprising a pulse-forming network proximate the output port [anyone of the first conduction path comprising the first pulse shaping circuit or the second conduction path the second pulse shaping circuits outputting an output at the output shown in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 17, Protiva discloses a method [fig. 1] comprising the steps of: receiving an input signal [IN]; generating a rise-time component of a pulse [pg. 2325 disclosing “The edge-triggered driver generates a well-defined pulse with sufficient power and speed to drive an SRD.”]; generating a fall-time component of the pulse [pg. 2325 disclosing “The edge-triggered driver generates a well-defined pulse with sufficient power and speed to drive an SRD.”]; delaying the fall-time component to a delayed fall-time component [pg. 2325 disclosing “After the SRD turns off, a fast fall time voltage step propagates in both directions away from the SRD. The first step propagates unchanged to the generator output, while the second propagates along the delay line back to the input of the pulser.”]; and combining the rise-time component and the delayed fall-time component to generate an output signal [pg. 2325 disclosing “Finally, the Gaussian-like pulse is formed by summing of the delayed inverted step with the waveform propagating unchanged from the SRD to the output.”].
Regarding claim 18, Protiva discloses further wherein the fall-time component is delayed by an adjustable delay [pg. 2325 disclosing “After the SRD turns off, a fast fall time voltage step propagates in both directions away from the SRD. The first step propagates unchanged to the generator output, while the second propagates along the delay line back to the input of the pulser.”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 3, 7-9, 13-14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Protiva.
Regarding claim 3, Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the first pulse compressor comprises lumped inductors
However, it would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have inductor L1 shown in fig. 2 to be a combination of many inductors in series and/or parallel to have a needed equivalent inductance to ensure proper operation of the system.
Protiva does not explicitly disclose the first pulse compressor comprises reversely biased varactor diodes.
However, Provita discloses [pg. 2325] “After the SRD turns off, a fast fall time voltage step propagates in both directions away from the SRD… The step waveform propagating from the SRD to the input is reflected back with an inverted polarity and propagates to the output again.”. If the diode is turned off with a reverse polarity, the diode is reverse biased. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that step recovery diodes are known as memory varactors and both act as voltage-controlled capacitors. It would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the step recovery diodes as memory varactors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the delay element reversely biased varactor diodes since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 7, Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the second pulse compressor comprises lumped inductors.
However, it would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have inductor L1 shown in fig. 2 to be a combination of many inductors in series and/or parallel to have a needed equivalent inductance to ensure proper operation of the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the second pulse compressor comprises lumped inductors since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the second pulse compressor comprised reversely biased varactor diodes.
However, Protiva discloses [pg. 2325] “After the SRD turns off, a fast fall time voltage step propagates in both directions away from the SRD… The step waveform propagating from the SRD to the input is reflected back with an inverted polarity and propagates to the output again.”. If the diode is turned off with a reverse polarity, the diode is reverse biased. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that step recovery diodes are known as memory varactors and both act as voltage-controlled capacitors. It would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the step recovery diodes as memory varactors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the second pulse compressor comprised reversely biased varactor diodes since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 8, Protiva discloses further wherein the second NLTL comprises four sections. Comprising:
A first section: T2, C2
A second section: R2, C1, T2 and C1
A third section: T1 and R3
A fourth section: L1 and DC
A fifth section: Delay line and SRD
Regarding claim 9, Protiva discloses further wherein the second NLTL comprises five or more sections. Comprising:
A first section: T2, C2
A second section: R2, C1, T2 and C1
A third section: T1 and R3
A fourth section: L1 and DC
A fifth section: Delay line and SRD
Regarding claim 13, Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the delay element comprises lumped inductors and reversely biased varactor diodes.
However, it would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have inductor L1 of the nonlinear conduction path, shown in fig. 2, to be a combination of many inductors in series and/or parallel to have a needed equivalent inductance to ensure proper operation of the system. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that step recovery diodes are known as memory varactors and both act as voltage-controlled capacitors. It would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the step recovery diodes as memory varactors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the delay element comprises lumped inductors and reversely biased varactor diodes since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the delay element comprises reversely biased varactor diodes.
However, Provita discloses [pg. 2325] “After the SRD turns off, a fast fall time voltage step propagates in both directions away from the SRD… The step waveform propagating from the SRD to the input is reflected back with an inverted polarity and propagates to the output again.”. If the diode is turned off with a reverse polarity, the diode is reverse biased. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that step recovery diodes are known as memory varactors and both act as voltage-controlled capacitors. It would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the step recovery diodes as memory varactors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the delay element reversely biased varactor diodes since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 14, Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuit is for generation of a Gaussian doublet pulse.
However, Protiva discloses [pg. 2324] “Sharpened step-like waveforms are then usually converted to Gaussian, monocycle or higher-order derivative pulses”. Protiva discloses further [pg. 2325] “The resulting Gaussian pulse is then converted to a monocycle pulse by an additional monocycle PFN.”. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that performing derivation on gaussian monocycle pulses will result in gaussian doublet pulses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to perform derivation on the resulting output of Protiva to have generation of a Gaussian doublet pulse since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 16, does not explicitly disclose further wherein the pulse-forming network is for transforming a Gaussian doublet pulse to a monocycle doublet pulse
However, Protiva discloses [pg. 2324] “Sharpened step-like waveforms are then usually converted to Gaussian, monocycle or higher-order derivative pulses”. Protiva discloses further [pg. 2325] “The resulting Gaussian pulse is then converted to a monocycle pulse by an additional monocycle PFN.”. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that performing derivation on gaussian monocycle pulses will result in gaussian doublet pulses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to perform the mathematical operations on the resulting output of Protiva to have the pulse-forming network is for transforming a Gaussian doublet pulse to a monocycle doublet pulse since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 19, Protiva does not explicitly disclose wherein the output signal comprises a Gaussian doublet pulse.
However, Protiva discloses [pg. 2324] “Sharpened step-like waveforms are then usually converted to Gaussian, monocycle or higher-order derivative pulses”. Protiva discloses further [pg. 2325] “The resulting Gaussian pulse is then converted to a monocycle pulse by an additional monocycle PFN.”. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that performing derivation on gaussian monocycle pulses will result in gaussian doublet pulses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to perform derivation on the resulting output of Protiva to have the output signal comprises a Gaussian doublet pulse since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 20, Protiva does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transforming the Gaussian doublet pulse to a monocycle doublet pulse.
However, Protiva discloses [pg. 2324] “Sharpened step-like waveforms are then usually converted to Gaussian, monocycle or higher-order derivative pulses”. Protiva discloses further [pg. 2325] “The resulting Gaussian pulse is then converted to a monocycle pulse by an additional monocycle PFN.”. Furthering this, it is well known in the art that performing derivation on gaussian monocycle pulses will result in gaussian doublet pulses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to perform the mathematical operations on the resulting output of Protiva to have the pulse-forming network is for transforming a Gaussian doublet pulse to a monocycle doublet pulse since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Protiva in view of Mrkvica et al. (“Sub-nanosecond Pulse Generator for Through-the-Wall Radar Application”, 2009 Asia Pacific Microwave Conference, pg. 2324-2327 and Mrkvica hereinafter.).
Regarding claim 10, Provita discloses all the features regarding claim 1 as indicated above. Provita does not explicitly disclose wherein the first pulse compressor comprises a first NLTL comprising first one or more varactor diodes for rise-time compression, and the second pulse compressor comprises a second NLTL comprising second one or more varactor diodes for fall- time compression, the second one or more varactor diodes of the second NLTL arranged with a second polarity opposite a first polarity of the first one or more varactor diodes of the first NLTL.
However, Mrkvica shows more detail of the inner workings of the SRD+pulse forming circuit of Protiva with fig. 2 showing blue falling edges and green rising edges of the pulse forming circuit. Combining this with the disclosure of pg. 1905 “After the SRD turns off, a fast fall time voltage step propagates in both directions away from the SRD. The first step propagates unchanged to the generator output, while the second propagates along the delay line back to the input of the pulser… The step waveform propagating from the SRD to the input is reflected back with an inverted polarity and propagates to the output again. Finally, the Gaussian-like pulse is formed by summing of the delayed inverted step with the waveform propagating unchanged from the SRD to the output”.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine first and second conductive paths of Protiva with the teachings of Mrkvica to have the first pulse compressor comprises a first NLTL comprising first one or more varactor diodes for rise-time compression, and the second pulse compressor comprises a second NLTL comprising second one or more varactor diodes for fall-time compression, the second one or more varactor diodes of the second NLTL arranged with a second polarity opposite a first polarity of the first one or more varactor diodes of the first NLTL.
Provita in view of Mrkvica does not explicitly disclose the diodes as being varactor diodes.
However, step recovery diodes (SRDs) are well known in the art as being memory varactors and both act as voltage-controlled capacitors. It would be a simple practice for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the step recovery diodes as memory varactors.
Therefore, it would be a simple practice to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the step recovery diodes as varactors since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure, Maxwell et al. (US 7869526 B2) is cited to teach a system and method for a single stage tunable ultra-wideband pulse generator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G YEAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 954 Schedule.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/JAMES G YEAMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights