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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 09/24/2025 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 6, 13, and 16 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-12, 14, 15, and 17-21 are pending in the application with claims 1, and 15 being independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 recite: “wherein the inspection seat is a hole in a wall of the waveguide.” Since, a hole cannot logically be a seat, it is better to change the language of this limitation to: “wherein the inspection seat is reach through a hole in a wall of the waveguide.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al. (U.S. publication No. 2017/0292919) hereinafter “McCollough” in view of Nennie et al. (International Publication No. WO 2015/152715) hereinafter “Nennie.
Regarding claim 1, McCollough discloses a device for microwave measurement of a dielectric discontinuity of a material to be inspected [see abstract, and column 2, lines 12-35 disclosing reconstructing a dielectric image of the object which would determine any discontinuity present], said device comprising:
a launcher for the main body; [a single MW transmitter antenna 10; see [0066] and FIG. 2 of McCollough]
a main body; and [see [0047]; the object mount may include a tank with an open enclosure filled with a matching medium or liquid, the tank is the main body]
only one receiving antenna, [ a single MW receiver antenna 20; see [0066] and FIG. 2 of McCollough; [0066] disclosing: “Further, the MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may comprise a single MW receiver antenna, and a single MW transmitter antenna. By using only a single MW receiver antenna, and a single MW transmitter antenna, interference of extra antennas with the radiation from the object being investigated may be reduced”]
wherein:
- the launcher is configured to emit in the main body, a microwave electromagnetic field adapted to interact with the material to be inspected; [see FIG. 2 and [0025] of McCollough disclosing: “a MW transmitter configured to transmit a MW towards the object”]
- the only one receiving antenna is configured to receive an electromagnetic field reflected by the material,[see FIG. 2 and [0025] of Mc Mccollough disclosing: “a MW receiver configured to detect a MW scattered field received from the object; ] said reflected electromagnetic field containing information correlated with a dielectric discontinuity of said material; [see [0019]-[0021]; the received data is used to construct a dielectric image of the object which would include any discontinuity as well]
said main body [tank including the sample] having an inspection seat [object mount 70; see [0047]] configured for an insertion of at least one portion of the material [ see [0047] of McCollough], wherein the inspection seat in a hole in a wall of the main body [see [0-047]; the tank 70 which is equivalent to the main body is disclosed to have an opening (i.e. open enclosure). Therefore, the walls of the main boy include at least a hole in a wall of the main body; that hole is the equivalent of the inspection seat;]
wherein at least one of either the launcher or the single receiving antenna is movable in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat. [see [0048] disclosing: “MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may be rotated about the center axis 60” ]
wherein the waveguide has an external seat for insertion of the launcher [outer ring antenna mount 262; see FIG. 2] and an internal seat for insertion of the only one receiving antenna, [inner ring antenna mount 260; see FIG. 2] or the waveguide has an external seat [outer ring antenna mount 262; see [0064]] for insertion of the only one receiving antenna [receiving antenna 20; see FIG. 2 and [0046]] and an internal seat ,[inner ring antenna mount 260; see FIG. 2] for insertion of the launcher [transmitter antenna 10; see FIG. 2 and [0046]],
wherein the external seat is arranged at a peripheral portion of the waveguide and wherein the internal seat is arranged between the external seat and the inspection seat [see FIG. 2 and [0064] of McCollough]
Even though McCollough discloses a container (i.e. Tank 70; see [0074)) that would place the sample, McCollough however does not expressly disclose that the main body of the device is a waveguide
Nennie, directed towards measurement of dielectric property of samples suing a waveguide [see abstract of Nennie] further discloses that the main body of the device is a waveguide [see FIG. 1; the waveguide is a simple rectangle]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough further such that the main body of the device is a waveguide wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate the emitted electromagnetic field towards the material and convey the reflected electromagnetic field towards the single receiving antenna according to the teachings of Nennie in order to study the effectiveness of different types of electromagnetic propagation modes on the measurement of dielectric discontinuities and increase the accuracy of the measurement as a result [see page 21, lines 12-15 of Nennie]. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of sample support (i.e. sample tank of McCollough) with another (rectangular waveguide of Nennie) and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and improved results (KSR rationale B)
Regarding claim 3, McCollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough further discloses that the single receiving antenna is movable in rotation in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat. [see [0046] of McCollough disclosing that “the MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may be rotated about a center axis 60”]
Regarding claim 4, McCollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough further discloses that the inspection seat is arranged in a central portion of the main body [see FIG. 2; the sample holder 70 is placed in the middle of the apparatus]
Mccollough does not disclose that the main body is a waveguide.
Nennie further discloses that the main body of the device is a waveguide [see FIG. 1; the waveguide is a simple rectangle]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough further such that the main body of the device is a waveguide wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate the emitted electromagnetic field towards the material and convey the reflected electromagnetic field towards the single receiving antenna according to the teachings of Nennie in order to study the effectiveness of different types of electromagnetic propagation modes on the measurement of dielectric discontinuities and increase the accuracy of the measurement as a result [see page 21, lines 12-15 of Nennie]. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of sample support (i.e. sample tank of McCollough) with another (rectangular waveguide of Nennie) and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and improved results (KSR rationale B)
Regarding claim 7, Mccollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 5 [see rejection of claim 5 above]
Mccollough further discloses that the internal seat has a circumferential extension around the inspection seat [inner ring 210; see [0058] and FIG. 2] and the launcher or the single receiving antenna is slidable, inside the receiving seat, in rotation around the inspection seat. [see [0064]-[0065] and FIG. 2; the antenna is mounted on the antenna mount 262 and slides in rotation around the inspection seat]
Regarding claim 10, McCollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Mccollough further discloses a second rotation means associated with the material to be inspected and configured to move said material in rotation in a plurality of positions coaxially with respect to a geometric center of the inspection seat. [see [0054] of Mccollough]
Regarding claim 19, McCollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 2 [see rejection of claim 2 above]
McCollough further discloses that the single receiving antenna is movable in rotation in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat. [see [0046] of McCollough disclosing that “the MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may be rotated about a center axis 60”]
Regarding claim 20, McCollough as modified by Nennie and Mccollough discloses all the limitations of claim 6 [see rejection of claim 6 above]
Mccollough further discloses that the internal seat has a circumferential extension around the inspection seat [inner ring 210; see [0058] and FIG. 2] and the launcher or the single receiving antenna is slidable, inside the receiving seat, in rotation around the inspection seat. [see [0064]-[0065] and FIG. 2; the antenna is mounted on the antenna mount 262 and slides in rotation around the inspection seat]
Regarding claim 21, Mccollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough does not discloses that the waveguide comprises a multimode waveguide.
Nennie further discloses that the waveguide comprises a multimode waveguide. [see FIG. 1 of Nennie, the waveguide is a simple rectangle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a rectangular waveguide supports a plurality of modes of propagation. Further page 5, lines 5-15 of Nennie discloses that various modes of the waveguide can be studied implying that the waveguide supports more than one propagation mode]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough further such that the main body of the device is a waveguide wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate the emitted electromagnetic field towards the material and convey the reflected electromagnetic field towards the single receiving antenna according to the teachings of Nennie in order to study the effectiveness of different types of electromagnetic propagation modes on the measurement of dielectric discontinuities and increase the accuracy of the measurement as a result [see page 21, lines 12-15 of Nennie]. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of sample support (i.e. sample tank of McCollough) with another (rectangular waveguide of Nennie) and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and improved results (KSR rationale B)
Claims 8, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al. (U.S. publication No. 2017/0292919) hereinafter “McCollough” in view of Nennie et al. (International Publication No. WO 2015/152715) hereinafter “Nennie and Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0027288) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 8, Mccollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough as modified by Nennie does not expressly disclose a support element arranged below the multimode waveguide and having a seat coaxial with said inspection seat, the launcher or the only one single receiving antenna being constrained to said support element, the device further comprising first rotation means associated with said support element and configured to move said support element in rotation, determining a corresponding rotation of the launcher or of the only one single receiving antenna in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat.
Li, directed towards detecting dielectric properties of materials [see abstract of Li] further discloses a support element [lift case 114; see FIG. 1 ] arranged below the main body [see FIG. 1 and [0025]] and having a seat coaxial with said inspection seat [see FIG. 1; the lift case 114 is coaxially located with the opening 111b], the launcher or the single receiving antenna being constrained to said support element [see [0025] and FIG. 1; the antenna frame 112 is attached to and is supported by the lift case 114], the device further comprising first rotation means [motor control module 130] associated with said support element [see FIG. 1] and configured to move said support element in rotation [see [0032] the motor control module 130 rotates the lift case 114], determining a corresponding rotation of the launcher or of the single receiving antenna in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat [see [0032] as the lift case 114 rotates the antenna frame 112 which is mounted on that would rotate as well.].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough as modified by Nennie further such that it includes a support element arranged below the multimode waveguide and having a seat coaxial with said inspection seat, the launcher or the only one receiving antenna being constrained to said support element, the device further comprising first rotation means associated with said support element and configured to move said support element in rotation, determining a corresponding rotation of the launcher or of the only one receiving antenna in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat according to the teachings of Li in order to allow for observation of the sample in all directions and provide a better understanding of the dielectric properties of the tissue.
Regarding claim 11, Mccollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough as modified by Nennie does not expressly disclose that a movement member configured to change a relative distance between the multimode waveguide and the material to be inspected, determining a greater or lesser insertion of the material to be inspected inside the inspection seat.
Lee further discloses a movement member [elevation angle motor 117] configured to change a relative distance between the main body and the material to be inspected determining a greater or lesser insertion of the material to be inspected inside the inspection seat. [see [0030] of Lee; see FIG. 6 lowering the main body 111 would cause less of the material to be inside the inspection seat],
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough as modified by Nennie further such that it includes a movement member configured to change a relative distance between the multimode waveguide and the material to be inspected, determining a greater or lesser insertion of the material to be inspected inside the inspection seat according to the teachings of Li in order to allow for observation of the sample in all directions and provide a better understanding of the dielectric properties of the tissue.
Regarding claim 14, Mccollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough as modified by Nennie does not expressly disclose that the material to be inspected comprises a biological tissue, in particular a mammary tissue or a head or a limb, and wherein said dielectric discontinuity is an inhomogeneity of a dielectric constant and/or in the conductivity of said biological tissue
Lee further discloses that the material to be inspected comprises a biological tissue, in particular a mammary tissue or a head or a limb, and wherein said dielectric discontinuity is an inhomogeneity of a dielectric constant and/or in the conductivity of said biological tissue. [see [0026] the target is breast tissue]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough as modified by Nennie further such that the material to be inspected comprises a biological tissue, in particular a mammary tissue or a head or a limb, and wherein said dielectric discontinuity is an inhomogeneity of a dielectric constant and/or in the conductivity of said biological tissue according to the teachings of Li in order to allow for observation of the sample in all directions and provide a better understanding of the dielectric properties of the various tissues of the body.
Claims 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al. (U.S. publication No. 2017/0292919) hereinafter “McCollough” in view of Nennie et al. (International Publication No. WO 2015/152715) hereinafter “Nennie and Tiberi (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0230725) hereinafter “Tiberi”.
Regarding claim 15, McCollough discloses a Microware measurement apparatus [see abstract of McCollough] comprising:
a device for microwave measurement of a dielectric discontinuity of a material to be inspected [see abstract, and column 2, lines 12-35 disclosing reconstructing a dielectric image of the object which would determine any discontinuity present], said device comprising:
a launcher for the main body; [a single MW transmitter antenna 10; see [0066] and FIG. 2 of McCollough]
a main body; and [see [0047]; the object mount may include a tank with an open enclosure filled with a matching medium or liquid, the tank is the main body]
only one receiving antenna, [a single MW receiver antenna 20; see [0066] and FIG. 2 of McCollough; [0066] disclosing: “Further, the MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may comprise a single MW receiver antenna, and a single MW transmitter antenna. By using only a single MW receiver antenna, and a single MW transmitter antenna, interference of extra antennas with the radiation from the object being investigated may be reduced”]
wherein:
- the launcher is configured to emit in the main body a microwave electromagnetic field adapted to interact with the material to be inspected; [see FIG. 2 and [0025] of McCollough disclosing: “a MW transmitter configured to transmit a MW towards the object”]
- the single receiving antenna is configured to receive an electromagnetic field reflected by the material, [ see FIG. 2 and [0025] of Mc Mccollough disclosing: “a MW receiver configured to detect a MW scattered field received from the object; ] said reflected electromagnetic field containing information correlated with a dielectric discontinuity of said material; [see [0019]-[0021]; the received data is used to construct a dielectric image of the object which would include any discontinuity as well]
said main body [tank including the sample] having an inspection seat [object mount 70; see [0047]] configured for an insertion of at least one portion of the material [ see [0047] of McCollough]wherein at least one of either the launcher or the single receiving antenna is movable in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat. [see [0048] disclosing: “MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may be rotated about the center axis 60”]
wherein the waveguide has an external seat for insertion of the launcher [outer ring antenna mount 262; see FIG. 2] and an internal seat for insertion of the only one receiving antenna, [inner ring antenna mount 260; see FIG. 2] or the waveguide has an external seat [outer ring antenna mount 262; see [0064]] for insertion of the only one receiving antenna [receiving antenna 20; see FIG. 2 and [0046]] and an internal seat ,[inner ring antenna mount 260; see FIG. 2] for insertion of the launcher [transmitter antenna 10; see FIG. 2 and [0046]],
wherein the external seat is arranged at a peripheral portion of the waveguide and wherein the internal seat is arranged between the external seat and the inspection seat [see FIG. 2 and [0064] of McCollough] wherein the inspection seat in a hole in a wall of the main body [see [0-047]; the tank 70 which is equivalent to the main body is disclosed to have an opening (i.e. open enclosure). Therefore, the walls of the main boy include at least a hole in a wall of the main body]
- a processing unit [computation processor 90 which includes both central processing and graphics processing; see [0056] of McCullough] configured to:
generate, as a function of said processing, an image representative of a map of dielectric homogeneity of the material and a signal representative of the presence or absence of a non-integrity of the material. [see [0019]-[0021]; the received data is used to construct a dielectric image of the object which would include any discontinuity as well]
McCollough however does not disclose that the main body of the device is a waveguide and that the processor processes a plurality of values indicating amplitude and phase of the electromagnetic field reflected by the material in a plurality of different relative positions between the material and the single receiving antenna
Nennie, directed towards measurement of dielectric property of samples suing a waveguide [see abstract of Nennie] further discloses that the main body of the device is a waveguide [see FIG. 1; the waveguide is a simple rectangle]
Tiberi directed towards dielectric discontinuity measurement for mammary tissue [see abstract of Tiberi] further discloses process a plurality of values indicating amplitude and phase of the electromagnetic field reflected by the material in a plurality of different relative positions between the material and the single receiving antenna; [see [0130] of Tiberi disclosing that the amplitude and phase of the signal is measured at various points located on the surface of the sample]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough further such that the main body of the device is a waveguide according to the teachings of Nennie in order to study the effectiveness of different types of electromagnetic propagation modes on the measurement of dielectric discontinuities and increase the accuracy of the measurement as a result [see page 21, lines 12-15 of Nennie]. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of waveguide (i.e. waveguide of McCollough as modified by Nennie) with another (rectangular waveguide of Nennie) and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and improved results (KSR rationale B)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough further such that it would be configured to process a plurality of values indicating amplitude and phase of the electromagnetic field reflected by the material in a plurality of different relative positions between the material and the single receiving antenna according to the teachings of Tiberi in order to detect any electrical discontinuity in the tissue resulting in diagnosis [see [0128] of Tiberi]
Regarding claim 17, McCollough as modified by Nennie and Tiberi discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
McCollough as modified by Nennie further discloses that the only one receiving antenna is movable in rotation in a plurality of positions around the inspection seat. [see [0046] of McCollough disclosing that “the MW transmitter antenna 10 and the MW receiver antenna 20 may be rotated about a center axis 60”]
Regarding claim 18, McCollough as modified by Nennie and Tiberi discloses all the limitations of claim 15 [see rejection of claim 15 above]
McCollough further discloses that the inspection seat is arranged in a central portion of the main body [see FIG. 2; the sample holder 70 is placed in the middle of the apparatus]
Mccollough does not disclose that the main body is a waveguide.
Nennie further discloses that the main body of the device is a waveguide [see FIG. 1; the waveguide is a simple rectangle]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough further such that the main body of the device is a waveguide wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate the emitted electromagnetic field towards the material and convey the reflected electromagnetic field towards the single receiving antenna according to the teachings of Nennie in order to study the effectiveness of different types of electromagnetic propagation modes on the measurement of dielectric discontinuities and increase the accuracy of the measurement as a result [see page 21, lines 12-15 of Nennie]. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of sample support (i.e. sample tank of McCollough) with another (rectangular waveguide of Nennie) and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and improved results (KSR rationale B)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al. (U.S. publication No. 2017/02919) hereinafter “McCollough” in view of Nennie et al. (International Publication No. WO 2015/152715) hereinafter “Nennie” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son et al (Korean Publication No. KR 2017/0007674) hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 9, McCollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough as modified by Nennie does not disclose expressly disclose that the second rotation means associated with the multimode waveguide and configured to move said multimode waveguide in rotation in a plurality of positions around a geometric center of the inspection seat
Son, directed towards a microwave tomography apparatus for breast tissue imaging [see abstract of Son] further discloses the second rotation means associated with the multimode waveguide and configured to move said multimode waveguide in rotation in a plurality of positions around a geometric center of the inspection seat [the entire waveguide (water tray 120) is rotated around its axis; see [0041] of Son]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough as modified by Nennie further such that the second rotation means associated with the waveguide and configured to move said waveguide in rotation in a plurality of positions around a geometric center of the inspection seat according to the teachings of Son in order to allow for measurement of the sample in different orientations and angles of the waveguide with respect to the antenna. Further, doing so would have been substituting one design of waveguide with respect to the antennas with another and would have been obvious to try resulting in predictable and improved results. (KSR Rationale B)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCollough et al. (U.S. publication No. 2017/02919) hereinafter “McCollough” in view of Nennie et al. (International Publication No. WO 2015/152715) hereinafter “Nennie” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Han-Oh et al. (U.S. Publication NO. 2016/0081618) hereinafter “Han-Oh”.
Regarding claim 12, McCollough as modified by Nennie discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
McCollough as modified by Nennie does not disclose expressly disclose that the waveguide comprises, in at least one portion of at least one outer edge of the waveguide, a coating made of an absorbing material adapted to at least partially absorb the electromagnetic field emitted in the waveguide.
Han-Oh, directed towards a radar system for un-invasive measurement of tissue using antennas [see abstract of Han-Oh] further discloses that the waveguide comprises, in at least one portion of at least one outer edge of the waveguide, a coating made of an absorbing material adapted to at least partially absorb the electromagnetic field emitted in the waveguide. [see FIG. 6 disclosing an absorbing material on the outer walls of the waveguide. see also [0039]]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of McCollough as modified by Nennie further such that the waveguide comprises, in at least one portion of at least one outer edge of the waveguide, a coating made of an absorbing material adapted to at least partially absorb the electromagnetic field emitted in the waveguide according to the teachings of Han-Oh in order to minimize extraneous reflections from the walls [see [0039] of Han-Oh]. Doing so would have been applying a known method of applying an absorbing coating material of Han-Oh to a device ready for improvement of McCollough as modified by Nennie and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the amendments to independent claims 1 and 15 which were previously were incorporated in canceled claims 2, 3, and 16, the applicant has argued that the combination of McCollough and Nennie fails to disclose the added amendments.
In particular, the applicant has argued that McCollough does not disclose any sort of waveguide because the electromagnetic waves propagate in open space in the teachings of McCollough.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the tank 70 of McCollough which is to hold the sample and could be filled with liquid is clearly a 3D container if not a waveguide, and the electromagnetic waves Do propagate through that container.
The applicant has further argued that if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the teachings of McCollough with the waveguide of Nennie, the combination would not have an external seat for the launcher and an internal seat for the one receiving antenna because the arrangement of antennas in Nennie is different.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the only teaching of Nennie which was used to modify the design of McCollough is to use a waveguide instead of a simple container for better transfer of electromagnetic energy to the sample and allowing support of specific modes. Other sections of the design of Nennie are not imported into the design of McCollough and therefore, this argument against the combination is not persuasive as other elements are not being changed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Ashley Buran can be reached on 571-270-5284. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights