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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are accepted. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of 11/19/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 3 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Even though the amendment of claims 1, 3 and 18 includes the subject matter of claims 2 and 20, the amendment of 02/16/2026 omitted claim limitations which were originally considered in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 3 and 18 are rejected (see rejection below).
In addition, due to claim amendments, all pending claims are now rejected under Double Patenting rejection against copending Application No. 18/364,726 (see rejection below).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 3 - 13, 16 – 18, 21 – 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of copending Application No. 18/364,726 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they encompass the same invention (i.e., a compact waveguide comprising a primary bar and an impedance-matched series of secondary bars that is impedance-matched with the primary bar at a branching connection point, wherein the total impedance is a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars at the branching connection point as claimed). In addition, see latest claims of copending application 18/364/726 which includes limitations of the at least one secondary bar being noncolinear and nonconcentric with the primary bar. See claim to claim mapping below:
Claims of Instant Application (17/590,878)
Claims of Copending Application (18/364,726)
1
1,2
3
1,2,3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9,14,15
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
16
16
17
17
18
18,19,20
21
1
22
18
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 – 6, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0308932 A1 to Whittington et al. (hereinafter “Whittington”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Whittington teaches a compact waveguide (see abstract, see paragraphs [0018] – [0019] describing a load monitoring apparatus for testing of a material comprising a primary bar and one or more nested tubes surrounding a portion of the primary bar in which waves generated by an impact may traverse through the bar/tubes, see also paragraph [0020] stating “Accordingly, the tubes are connected at alternating ends to create a folded, serpentine-like configuration such that the load monitoring apparatus 10 has the effective length of a conventional bar in an actual smaller length”, thus reading on the invention as claimed), comprising:
a primary bar (see solid rod 12, Figs. 1, 2, see paragraph [0019]); and
an impedance-matched series of secondary bars (see first and second tubes 14, 16, Figs. 1 – 3, see paragraph [0019] describing the load monitoring apparatus 10 comprising a solid rod 12 and first and second tubes 16, see also paragraphs [0012], [0018], [0022] – [0023] describing the connection of the tubes being in series and impedance matched) that is impedance-matched with the primary bar at a branching connection point (see paragraph [0022] describing the first tube 14 and the second tube 16 are impedance matched to the solid rod 12 and illustrating a branching connection at 18, Fig. 1) that joins a plurality of branch secondary bars of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) to the primary bar (see paragraph [0020] describing the distal end of the first tube 14 is connected to the distal end of the solid rod 12), wherein the plurality of branch secondary bars (14, 16) branch from the primary bar (12) at the branching connection point (see Figs. 1, 2), wherein a total impedance of the plurality of branch secondary bars is equivalent to an impedance of the primary bar at the connection point (see paragraph [0022] describing the first tube 14 and the second tube 16 are impedance matched to the solid rod 12 to eliminate the reflection due to added tubes and in addition, the first tube 14 and the second tube 16 are sized such to substantially match the cross-sectional area of the solid rod 12, paragraph [0022] further states “It should also be noted that for each added tube to have the same characteristic impedance, i.e. cross sectional area, the thickness of each tube decreases as the number of tubes increase”, hence reading on the invention as claimed) and wherein the total impedance is a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars at the branching connection point (even though Whittington does not explicitly state the total impedance being a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars at the branching connection point, Whittington does teach plurality of secondary bars 14, 16 and that “It should also be noted that for each added tube to have the same characteristic impedance, i.e. cross sectional area, the thickness of each tube decreases as the number of tubes increase”, as described at paragraph [0022], thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the total impedance as a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of secondary bars 14, 16 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3, Whittington teaches a compact waveguide (see abstract, see paragraphs [0018] – [0019] describing a load monitoring apparatus for testing of a material comprising a primary bar and one or more nested tubes surrounding a portion of the primary bar in which waves generated by an impact may traverse through the bar/tubes, see also paragraph [0020] stating “Accordingly, the tubes are connected at alternating ends to create a folded, serpentine-like configuration such that the load monitoring apparatus 10 has the effective length of a conventional bar in an actual smaller length”, thus reading on the invention as claimed), comprising:
a primary bar (see solid rod 12, Figs. 1, 2, see paragraph [0019]); and
an impedance-matched series of secondary bars (see first and second tubes 14, 16, Figs. 1 – 3, see paragraph [0019] describing the load monitoring apparatus 10 comprising a solid rod 12 and first and second tubes 16, see also paragraphs [0012], [0018], [0022] – [0023] describing the connection of the tubes being in series and impedance matched) that is impedance-matched with the primary bar at a branching connection point (see paragraph [0022] describing the first tube 14 and the second tube 16 are impedance matched to the solid rod 12 and illustrating a branching connection at 18, Fig. 1) that joins a plurality of branch secondary bars of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (14, 16) to the primary bar (see paragraph [0020] describing the distal end of the first tube 14 is connected to the distal end of the solid rod 12), wherein the plurality of branch secondary bars (14, 16) branch from the primary bar (12) at the branching connection point (see Figs. 1, 2), wherein a total impedance of the plurality of branch secondary bars is equivalent to an impedance of the primary bar at the connection point (see paragraph [0022] describing the first tube 14 and the second tube 16 are impedance matched to the solid rod 12 to eliminate the reflection due to added tubes and in addition, the first tube 14 and the second tube 16 are sized such to substantially match the cross-sectional area of the solid rod 12, paragraph [0022] further states “It should also be noted that for each added tube to have the same characteristic impedance, i.e. cross sectional area, the thickness of each tube decreases as the number of tubes increase”, hence reading on the invention as claimed),
wherein the plurality of branch secondary bars (14, 16) are each first-order branch secondary bars (14 can be considered as first-order branch secondary bar as it branches at top and bottom portion of 12 as illustrated at Fig. 2), and each of the first-order branch secondary branch secondary bars (14) branches into a plurality of second-order branch secondary bars at a corresponding second-order branching connection point (see each of 14 at top and bottom portion as seen at Fig. 2, branching to 16, which is considered as the claimed “second-order branch”) of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars, wherein a sum of impedances of the plurality of second-order branch secondary bars (14, 16) is equivalent to a respective impedance of a respective first-order branch secondary bar at each of the second-order branching connection point (even though Whittington does not explicitly state the sum of impedances, Whittington does teach plurality of secondary bars 14, 16 and that “It should also be noted that for each added tube to have the same characteristic impedance, i.e. cross sectional area, the thickness of each tube decreases as the number of tubes increase”, as described at paragraph [0022], thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the total impedance as a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of secondary bars 14, 16 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, Whittington as modified above teaches wherein a respective secondary bar of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars is parallel to the primary bar (see arrangement at Fig 2 illustrating parallel arrangement of secondary bar 16 to the primary bar 12, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 6, Whittington as modified above teaches further comprising: at least one device that monitors (see paragraph [0024] of Whittington describing one or more sensors 22 used to extract the load sampling and reflection monitoring) a square waveform that propagates in at least one bar of the primary bar and the impedance-matched series of secondary bars (see paragraph [0023] of Whittington which states “the stress wave, propagating from the specimen 20, can be transferred into first tube 14 and second tube 16. The first tube 14 and second tube 16 are impedance matched to the solid rod 12 to eliminate the reflection due to the added tubes”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 8, Whittington as modified above teaches wherein a respective one of the primary bar and the impedance-matched series of secondary bars has a length greater than its width (see arrangement at Figs. 1, 2 of Whittington illustrating the solid rod 12 and first and second tubes 14, 16 respectively having length greater than its width, see also description at paragraph [0019] of Whittington).
Claim(s) 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittington in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0076395 A1 to Kamo et al. (hereinafter “Kamo”).
Regarding Claim 4, Whittington as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein a particular secondary bar of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars varies impedance along its axial length, and has equal impedance to a secondary bar or a set of secondary bars that is joined to the particular secondary bar at a particular connection point.
Kamo, in the field of waveguide devices, teaches that it is known to use a waveguide wherein a particular secondary bar of the impedance-matched series of secondary bars varies impedance along its axial length (see for instance impedance transformer 138A which is capable of increasing the capacitance of the waveguide from one end that is closer to a branching portion 136, see description at paragraphs [0192] – [0194], Figs. 23A, 23B, see also paragraphs [0137] – [0138], [0200], [0202], [0210] and Figs. 6A, 9A, 25 – 28 of Kamo describing use of the impedance transformer 138 as well as first and second recesses 137 which aid in tuning or varying the waveguide to have a desired acoustic length, hence reading on the invention as claimed), and has equal impedance to a secondary bar or a set of secondary bars that is joined to the particular secondary bar at a particular connection point (see impedance matching at branches of the waveguide of Kamo in paragraphs [0006] – [0008], [0137] – [0138] of Kamo, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a impedance transformer (i.e., momentum trap as claimed) of Kamo into Whittington, in order to be able to allow efficient selection of a desired acoustic length of the waveguide.
Regarding Claim 7, Whittington teaches the claimed invention except for at least one momentum trap that tunes the compact waveguide to have a desired acoustic length.
Kamo, in the field of waveguide devices, teaches that it is known to use at least one momentum trap that tunes the compact waveguide to have a desired acoustic length (see for instance impedance transformer 138A which is capable of increasing the capacitance of the waveguide from one end that is closer to a branching portion 136, see description at paragraphs [0192] – [0194], Figs. 23A, 23B, see also paragraphs [0137] – [0138], [0200], [0202], [0210] and Figs. 6A, 9A, 25 – 28 of Kamo describing use of the impedance transformer 138 as well as first and second recesses 137 which aid in tuning or varying the waveguide to have a desired acoustic length, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a impedance transformer (i.e., momentum trap as claimed) of Kamo into Whittington, in order to be able to allow efficient selection of a desired acoustic length of the waveguide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 13, 16 – 17 would be allowable if the Double Patenting rejection raised above can be overcome. However, an updated search will again be made upon applicant’s response.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of records do not teach “wherein the at least one secondary bar is noncollinear and nonconcentric with the primary bar; and generating, by the controller device, a measurement based at least in part on at least one parameter of the at least one waveform;”… “wherein each secondary bar comprises a plurality of branch secondary bars; and wherein a total impedance of the plurality of branch secondary bars is a sum of impedances corresponding to the plurality of branch secondary bars at the branching connection point” in combination with the remaining limitations.
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the Double Patenting rejection raised above can be overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, an updated search will again be conducted upon applicant’s response.
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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights