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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous rejections. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 24 line 2, the phrase “irradiation distance the” is a grammatical error.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leendert Van Der Hoek (NL 1033105), hereinafter Hoek, in view of Fournet-Fayas (US 4,210,793).
In re. claim 1, Hoek teaches a device suitable for irradiation of plants and/or for irradiation of items potentially-infested with arthropods with microwaves, the device comprising: a microwave generator (microwave (4)) for generating microwaves having a specified frequency (915 MHz) (pg. 3); a slotted microwave waveguide (3) (fig. 2), being a straight hollow conductor with a longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of pipe (16)) (fig. 4), a vertical axis and a transverse axis (inherent to the pipe) physically associated with said microwave generator so that an aperture (14) of said microwave generator introduces microwaves generated by said microwave generator into an inner volume of said waveguide (fig. 2), said waveguide including two or more slot antennas (17) (fig. 3) arranged in two different staggered rows being on different sides of a centerline of said waveguide (multiple pipes containing antennas (17) on different sides of line intersecting connection (14) in figure 4), said antennas configured to radiate microwaves having said specified frequency generated by said microwave generator from said inner volume of said waveguide to outside said slotted waveguide all in the direction parallel to said vertical axis of said slotted waveguide (equal number of degrees from center) (pg. 5, 3rd para.); and a supporting structure (fig. 1) for maintaining said slotted microwave waveguide in a position suitable for irradiating plants and/or for irradiating items potentially infested with arthropods during use of the device (held above ground), wherein said one or more slot antennas are almost parallel to said longitudinal axis and outside the plane defined by said vertical axis and said longitudinal axis of said waveguide (fig. 4).
Hoek fails to disclose the slot antennas are within 20 degrees of parallel to said longitudinal axis.
Fournet-Fayas teaches slot antennas (4) that are aligned with said longitudinal axis (1a) (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hoek to incorporate the teachings of Fournet-Fayas to have the slot antennas within 20 degrees of parallel to said longitudinal axis, for the purpose of providing a uniform distribution of power intensity (Fournet-Fayas; col. 2, ln. 25-30).
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hoek to have the slot antennas within 20 degrees of parallel to said longitudinal axis, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II). Doing so provides a more homogenous appearance compared to angles greater than 20 degrees.
In re. claim 3, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 1, wherein said slotted microwave waveguide configured to be resonant with microwaves of said specified frequency (closed off walls creates the required structure) and having two microwave-reflective longitudinal ends (figs. 2-3).
In re. claim 4, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 3, wherein said inner volume of said waveguide is dimensioned to allow constructive interference between microwaves reflected from said two longitudinal ends thereby allowing the device to reach a steady state where the amount of energy added by said microwave generator equals the amount of energy radiated from said slot antennas (closed off walls creates the required structure).
In re. claim 13, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 1, further comprising a controllable slot shutter functionally associated with a slot antenna of said one or more slot antennas (plate for closing off mouths of corrugated pipes (16)) (pg. 5), said slot shutter having at least two states: an open state during which microwaves can pass from said inner volume of said slotted waveguide through said slot antenna (when plate is removed); and a closed state during which microwaves cannot pass from said inner volume of said slotted waveguide through said slot antenna (when plate is installed).
In re. claim 14, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 1, comprising two or more different said slotted microwave waveguides (16) each with an associated magnetron generator (5), wherein the relative orientation of vertical axes of said slotted microwave waveguides is within ±15º of parallel to each other (fig. 4).
In re. claim 24, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 21, wherein the device is configured so that a designated irradiation distance, the combined electric field produced by said at least two slot antennas has a high-intensity contiguous region wherein all portions of said high-intensity contiguous region have an intensity of 20% of the average intensity of said high-intensity contiguous region (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
In re. claim 25, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 1, wherein said microwave generator (4) is directly physically associated with said slotted waveguide (fig. 1) so that an aperture (14) of said microwave generator introduces generated microwaves directly into said slotted waveguide (16) inner volume, so that the device is devoid of a transmission line, waveguide or tuner (fig. 1).
In re. claim 26, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 25, wherein a position of said aperture (14) of said microwave generator is flush with an inner wall (13) of said slotted waveguide (fig. 1).
In re. claim 27, Hoek as modified Fournet-Fayas (see Hoek) teach the device of claim 25, wherein said microwave generator configured to introduce generated microwaves at a location that corresponds to a minimum or maximum of a wave inside said slotted waveguide inner volume (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues With respect to the subject matter of canceled claim 23, now incorporated into claim 1, the Office Action referenced Fig. 4 of van der Hoek as disclosing multiple rows of pipes (16) and stated that this discloses the claimed staggered formation. However, van der Hoek does not teach or suggest that the slot antennas are arranged in two different staggered rows on different sides of a centerline of said waveguide. Rather, the referenced figure shows pipes (16) arranged in a single row along the centerline of the waveguide, which would not provide the desired effect discussed above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the interpretation of van der Hoek disclosing pipes (16) arranged in a single row along the centerline of the waveguide. It appears the applicant is referencing distributing waveguide (13), which is perpendicular to the remaining waveguides (16), listed as both a waveguide and pipes in the disclosure of van der Hoek. However, the examiner has provided no citation to the distributing waveguide (13), but instead to the applicator unit (3) as a whole. As shown below, a centerline of the lower waveguide (16) has slot antennas (17) on opposing sides of the centerline. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
441
1031
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues The assembly of van der Hoek, directed to sterilization of solid soil, is therefore directed to an entirely different purpose from the device of the present invention, an in fact teaches away from the device of the present invention, which is directed at a device for sterilization of plants but not of their surroundings, such as soil.
In response to applicant's argument that the current application is directed to an entirely different purpose, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647