Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “a granular susceptor material, the granular susceptor material comprising a ceramic material, a microwave absorbing material, and a susceptor material binder.” However, a susceptor is not recited in claim 1. Claiming a susceptor material does not make sense if a susceptor is not recited.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski (US 2020/0286757) in view of Araya et al (US 2002/0139795) and Heineck et al (US 2014/0263290).
Regarding claim 1, Kowalski discloses, A microwave apparatus for thermally processing particles (See Fig 1), the microwave apparatus comprising: a metallic housing (See Paragraph [0026], metal housing); a first microwave energy source (first microwave energy source 14A. See Paragraph [0027])) positioned to direct first microwave radiation into a first waveguide (first waveguide 18A), the first waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis (See Fig 2, the waveguide comprises an axis); and a second microwave energy source (first microwave energy source 14B) positioned to direct second microwave radiation into a second waveguide (Second waveguide 18B), the second waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis (Fig 2 shows the waveguide having an axis)
Kowalski fails to discloses the first and second waveguides being slotted waveguide, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis, the second slotted waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis and a plurality of transverse slots that emit a second modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of transverse slots have a length that is perpendicular to the second major waveguide axis.
However, Araya discloses a microwave apparatus for thermally processing of particles (claim 14), comprising a metallic housing (fig. 1, 22, column 6, lines 18-27), a microwave source 4, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis (Fig 6 as annotate below shows a slotted waveguide having a major axis with the top arrow showing the portion where the slots are longitudinal and parallel to the first major axis), a microwave energy source positioned to direct second microwave radiation into a second slotted waveguide, the second slotted waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis and a plurality of transverse slots that emit a second modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of transverse slots have a length that is perpendicular to the second major waveguide axis (Fig 6, as annotated below shows the second slotted waveguide at the bottom arrow having transverse slots which would emit a second modified radiation, See fig. 1, 4, 12, fig. 6, Paragraphs [0040]-[0050). Even though the device only comprises one microwave source, the manner in which the waveguides are arranged, the device would effectively produce two microwave sources.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Heineck discloses, a microwave apparatus comprising a first microwave energy source positioned to direct first microwave radiation into a first slotted waveguide, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis (See Paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0061] fig.15)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify or combine Kowalski in view of Araya and Heineck to provide the first and second waveguides being slotted waveguide, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis, the second slotted waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis and a plurality of transverse slots that emit a second modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of transverse slots have a length that is perpendicular to the second major waveguide axis for increasing the uniformity of radiation and the quality of treatment. This arrangement allows power absorption to be maximized (See Paragraph [0002] of Araya) by the material and minimize the absorption by surroundings. Further, Heineck (See Paragraph [0004] discloses one having ordinary skill in the art would select the desired shape, size and orientation of waveguides and slots for attaining a desired distribution of microwave energy within the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Kowalski the waveguides 18a and 18b would have a first and second axis pasting through radiating surfaces, with the waveguides being parallel to each other. The radiating surface could be considered the walls of the waveguides themselves as the structure or location of the first and second radiating surface are not claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kowalski fails to disclose the waveguide are separated by a distance greater than the half wavelength of the microwave radiation. However, it would have been obvious to separate them by this distance due to the laws of physics so each microwave radiation source would not interfere with each other and distort the desired energy distribution.
Regarding claims 4-15, Kowalski in view of Araya and Heineck fail to disclose the microwave apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first slotted waveguide has an S11 parameter value less than -20 dB and greater than -40 dB.
Wherein the first slotted waveguide has a voltage standing wave ratio parameter value less than 1.5 and greater than 1.
Wherein for the first slotted waveguide, a graph of the first modified microwave radiation in spherical coordinates at a constant value of Phi = 90 has a maximum deviation of +/- 7.5 dBV in a range from 30 degrees to 150 degrees.
Wherein for the first slotted waveguide, a graph of the first modified microwave radiation in spherical coordinates at a constant value of Theta = 90 has a maximum deviation of +/- 7.5 dBV in a range from 30 degrees to 150 degrees.
Wherein the second slotted waveguide has an S11 parameter value less than -20 dB and greater than -40 dB.
Wherein the second slotted waveguide has a voltage standing wave ratio parameter value less than 1.5 and greater than 1.
Wherein for the second slotted waveguide, a graph of the second modified microwave radiation in spherical coordinates at a constant value of Phi = 90 has a maximum deviation of +/- 7.5 dBV in a range from 30 degrees to 150 degrees.
Wherein for the second slotted waveguide, a graph of the second modified microwave radiation in spherical coordinates at a constant value of Theta = 90 has a maximum deviation of +/- 7.5 dBV in a range from 30 degrees to 150 degrees.
Wherein for a combined electric field of the first modified microwave radiation and the second modified microwave radiation, a graph in spherical coordinates at a constant value of Phi=90 has a maximum deviation of +/- 7.5 dBV in a range from 30 degrees to 150 degrees.
Wherein for a combined electric field of the first modified microwave radiation and the second modified microwave radiation, a graph in spherical coordinates at a constant value of Theta=90 has a maximum deviation of +/- 7.5 dBV in a range from 30 degrees to 150 degrees.
Wherein the first slotted waveguide and the second slotted waveguide have an S21 parameter value less than -20 dB and greater than -40 dB.
Wherein the first slotted waveguide and the second slotted waveguide have an S12 parameter value less than -20 dB and greater than -40 dB.
Each of these claims depend on claim 1 and are not considered in light of each other. Each claim is claimed as a single parameter and none of them are considered together as none of these dependent claims depend on each other. Each is considered separately but the same rejection would apply to all of the claims 4-15.
Heineck discloses one having ordinary skill in the art would select the desired shape, size and orientation of waveguides and slots for attaining a desired distribution of microwave energy within the housing, therefore it would have been obvious to provide the claimed S parameter values, combined electric fields and voltage standing wave ratio parameter since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. These values would be selected to produce the desired distribution of microwave energy in the chamber.
Regarding claim 16, Kowalski discloses the first and second waveguides being coupled directly to the respective microwave sources, See Fig 3.
Regarding claim 17, Kowalski fails to disclose a majority of transverse slots of the plurality of transverse slots have unique lengths relative to the second major waveguide axis of the second slotted waveguide. However, Heineck discloses using unique slot lengths and shapes (See Paragraph [0112]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Kowalski in view of Heineck to provide the majority of unique slots for altering the microwave energy distribution patterns as desired for the application.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalski (US 2020/0286757) in view of Araya et al (US 2002/0139795), Heineck et al (US 2014/0263290) and Brandon (WO 93/16571) as cited and provided by applicant.
The teachings of Kowalski have been discussed above. Kowalski fails to disclose, regarding claim 18, a granular susceptor material, the granular susceptor material comprising a ceramic material, a microwave absorbing material, and a susceptor material binder.
Brandon discloses a susceptor having a granular material comprising a ceramic, a microwave absorbing material and a binder. (See Page 15, last paragraph, page 16, first paragraph, page 20, paragraph 3- page 21, paragraph 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Kowalski in view of Brandon to provide , a granular susceptor material, the granular susceptor material comprising a ceramic material, a microwave absorbing material, and a susceptor material binder for producing a more uniform heating effect while minimizing the risk of cracking, reducing the attenuation of microwave flux, preventing microwave leakage, and reducing thermal runaway.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandon (WO 93/16571) in view of Kowalski (US 2020/0286757), Araya et al (US 2002/0139795) and Heineck et al (US 2014/0263290).
Brandon discloses, regarding claim 19, embedding the preliminary version of the part in a granular susceptor material, wherein the granular susceptor material comprising a ceramic material, a microwave absorbing material, and a susceptor material binder (page 15, last paragraph, page 20, paragraph 3- page 21, paragraph 1). The part is exposed to microwave radiation and the microwave apparatus comprises a wave guide, (See Page 11, Last Paragraph)
Brandon fails to disclose, regarding claim 19, a first slotted waveguide comprising a plurality of longitudinal slots and a second slotted waveguide comprising a plurality of transverse slots.
However, Kowalski discloses, A microwave apparatus for thermally processing particles (See Fig 1), the microwave apparatus comprising: a metallic housing (See Paragraph [0026], metal housing); a first microwave energy source (first microwave energy source 14A. See Paragraph [0027])) positioned to direct first microwave radiation into a first waveguide (first waveguide 18A), the first waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis (See Fig 2, the waveguide comprises an axis); and a second microwave energy source (first microwave energy source 14B) positioned to direct second microwave radiation into a second waveguide (Second waveguide 18B), the second waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis (Fig 2 shows the waveguide having an axis)
However, Araya discloses a microwave apparatus for thermally processing of particles (claim 14), comprising a metallic housing (fig. 1, 22, column 6, lines 18-27), a microwave source 4, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis (Fig 6 as annotate below shows a slotted waveguide having a major axis with the top arrow showing the portion where the slots are longitudinal and parallel to the first major axis), a microwave energy source positioned to direct second microwave radiation into a second slotted waveguide, the second slotted waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis and a plurality of transverse slots that emit a second modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of transverse slots have a length that is perpendicular to the second major waveguide axis (Fig 6, as annotated below shows the second slotted waveguide at the bottom arrow having transverse slots which would emit a second modified radiation, See fig. 1, 4, 12, fig. 6, Paragraphs [0040]-[0050). Even though the device only comprises one microwave source, the manner in which the waveguides are arranged, the device would effectively produce two microwave sources.
Heineck discloses, a microwave apparatus comprising a first microwave energy source positioned to direct first microwave radiation into a first slotted waveguide, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis (See Paragraphs [0003], [0017], [0061] fig.15)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify or combine Kowalski in view of Araya and Heineck to provide the first and second waveguides being slotted waveguide, the first slotted waveguide comprising a first major waveguide axis and a plurality of longitudinal slots that emit a first modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of longitudinal slots have a length that is parallel to the first major waveguide axis, the second slotted waveguide comprising a second major waveguide axis and a plurality of transverse slots that emit a second modified microwave radiation, wherein the plurality of transverse slots have a length that is perpendicular to the second major waveguide axis for increasing the uniformity of radiation and the quality of treatment. This arrangement allows power absorption to be maximized (See Paragraph [0002] of Araya) by the material and minimize the absorption by surroundings. Further, Heineck (See Paragraph [0004] discloses one having ordinary skill in the art would select the desired shape, size and orientation of waveguides and slots for attaining a desired distribution of microwave energy within the housing.
Regarding claim 20, Brandon fails to disclose a majority of transverse slots of the plurality of transverse slots have unique lengths relative to the second major waveguide axis of the second slotted waveguide. However, Heineck discloses using unique slot lengths and shapes (See Paragraph [0112]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Kowalski in view of Heineck to provide the majority of unique slots for altering the microwave energy distribution patterns as desired for the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/23/2025