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 .
Independent claim 11 is the broadest independent claim I (examiner) ever seen. Please amend the independent claim 11 in reasonable way.
Thank you,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Coleman (Fig. 1); 10,033,074] (of record) for reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Coleman (Fig. 1); 10,033,074] in view of [Brankovic et al (Fig. 7); 6,650,178] (of record) for reasons of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ring system of Coleman in the non-contacting rotary joint is a controlled impedance differential transmission line that is non-resonant, discontinuous, and typically implemented in microstrip multilayer printed circuit board technology. However, claim 1 never recited that the claimed invention is contacting rotary joint is a non-controlled impedance differential transmission line that is resonant, continuous, and typically non-implemented in microstrip multilayer printed circuit board technology. While the examiner acknowledges that the specific features argued by applicant’s are not explicitly disclosed in Coleman’s reference, it should be noted that such features, as argued by applicants, have not been positively recited in claim 1. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with what is actually claimed. Applicant further argues that the incorporation of two terminating loads implies substantial power consumption to effect the high bandwidth near field coupling in Coleman. Again, claim 1 never recited that the applicant’s invention does not include two terminating loads. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with what is actually claimed. Applicant further argues that there is nothing that changes the impedance of the ring in Coleman. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Due to the temperature changes, the impedance of the ring in Coleman changes. In other words, the impedance of the ring in Coleman never stay in constant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Henry Choe whose telephone number is (571)272-1760. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 AM- 6:00 PM EST. 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/interview practice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrea J Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on (571)272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HENRY CHOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights