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. 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(s) FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 8 - 39 is /are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 18 recites the limitation " chemical agents which decrease copper electrode deposit purity and/or resistivity and/or which result in outgassing " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line s 4-5 . It is unclear what these chemical agents are. Dependent claim(s) 19-39 is/are rejected based on rejected claim 18. Claim 26 recites the limitation " the waveform thickening method " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT lines 1 -2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “a waveform thickening method .” Dependent claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected based on rejected claim 26. Claim 32 recites the limitation " the one or more waveforms " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the repeated waveforms.” Claim 33 recites the limitation " the one or more waveforms " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the repeated waveforms.” 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 -3, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14-16 , 18-20, 22-23, 26-27, 30, 32-34, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthar ( K. Suthar, INVESTIGATION OF VARIOUS FABRICATION METHODS TO PRODUCE A 180GHz CORRUGATED WAVEGUIDE STRUCTURE IN 2MM DIAMETER 0.5 LONG COPPER TUBE FOR THE COMPACT WAKEFIELD ACCELERATOR FOR FEL FACILITY , North American Particle Acc. Conf. (NAPAC) 2019, Lansing, MI, USA, pp. 1-4 ) in view of Taylor (US 6878259 ). Regarding claim 1, Suthar teaches a method of manufacturing a corrugated copper microwave waveguide (p. 1, col. 2, para. 2: to produce corrugated copper waveguide) , the method comprising: placing a mandrel with external corrugations (Fig. 2(c): electroforming; (2) corrugated Al mandrel) in an electrolyte bath (Fig. 2(c): (3) electroplating showing the Al Mandrel in an electrolyte bath); locating a copper anode in the bath proximate the mandrel (Fig. 2(c): (3) electroplating showing a Cu electrode in the bath proximate the mandrel) ; applying one or more electric field to the mandrel and anode (Fig. 2(c): (3) electroplating showing a n electric field applied between the Al Mandrel and a Cu electrode as an anode) removing the mandrel and the resulting electroformed copper waveguide from the electrolyte bath (p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: after the electroplating, the mandrel was placed in a boiling bath of NaOH to dissolve the Aluminum chemically) ; and excising the mandrel resulting in a microwave waveguide with internal corrugations (Fig. 2(c): (4); p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: the complete etching of Aluminum leaves behind the plated structure as the final electroformed product) . Suthar does not disclose the electrolyte bath is substantially devoid of brighteners, accelerators or levelers and including copper ions, sulfuric acid, chloride, and polyethylene glycol or the applied electric field has one or more waveforms to control electrodeposition distribution of copper to the mandrel rather than controlling the electrolyte bath chemistry . However, Taylor teaches electrodeposition of metals into microscopic recesses on the surface of a substrate and formation of uniform layers of electrodeposited metal on a substrate (col. 1, ll. 21-24). T raditionally, the p lating bath has small amounts of brigh t eners and levelers for obtaining a bright, shiny, and smooth surface of the deposited metal (col. 5, para. 3-4). But Taylor teaches deposit a metal by electrodeposition into small trenches and vias using a modulated reversing electric field, using a plating bath that is substantially devoid of levelers and/or brighteners (col. 6, ll. 30-34). For depositing copper in trenches and vias, it is useful to use a carrier (or compressor) compound (col. 6, ll. 18-19), which is preferably poly(ethylene glycol) (col. 6, ll. 21-22) and typically used in combination with chloride ion (col. 6, ll. 27-28). A preferred bath for electroplating copper onto a microrough surface is an aqueous acidic copper sulfate bath (col. 16, ll. 9-11). Thus, Taylor teaches the electrolyte bath of the electroplating is substantially devoid of brighteners , accelerators or levelers (col. 6, ll. 30-34) and including copper ions, sulfuric acid (col. 16, ll. 10-11: aqueous acidic copper sulfate), chloride, and polyethylene glycol (col. 6, ll. 21-22, 27-28). Further, the applied electric field has one or more waveforms (Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 66-67: rectangular modulated reverse electric field waveform) to control electrodeposition distribution of copper to the mandrel rather than controlling the electrolyte bath chemistry (col. 6, ll. 30-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar by controlling the deposit of metal by using a modulated electric field with rectangular waveforms in a bath devoid of levelers and/or brighteners as taught by Taylor because it would still achieve uniform filling of trenches and vias in the substrates (col. 6, ll. 16-18). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). And the substitution of the modulated electric filed plus the carrier (suppressor) for traditional brighteners and/or levelers would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B). The designation “ to control electrodeposition distribution of copper to the mandrel rather than controlling the electrolyte bath chemistry ” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the step “applying one or more waveforms to the mandrel and anode .” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, this designation is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04. Regarding claim 2 , Suthar teaches the waveguide internal corrugations have a sub-millimeter width (Fig. 1: the corrugation width is the gap G 180 µm ) . Regarding claim 3 , Suthar teaches the waveguide internal corrugations have a sub-millimeter distance between adjacent corrugations (Fig. 1: the distance between adjacent corrugations is (P-G) = 160 µm ) . Regarding claim 5 , Suthar teaches the mandrel is made of aluminum (p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: Al mandrel). Regarding claim s 6 and 9-10 , Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1. Suthar does not teach the waveforms include a cathodic current followed by an anodic current repeated for a predetermined time (claim 6) or a waveguide thickening method that includes applying a cathodic current waveform followed by an anodic current waveform for a predetermined time (claims 9-10) . However, Taylor teaches a rectangular modulated reverse electric field waveform is used (Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 66-67). The waveform comprises a cathodic pulse followed by an anodic pulse (col. 8, ll. 1-3) repeated for a predetermined time (Fig. 1: current signals repeated to achieve the desired metal plating on the substrate ). Here, the step including applying a cathodic current waveform followed by an anodic current waveform for a predetermined time is deemed to the waveguide thickening method , until the desired thickness is achieved after a predetermined time . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by using repeated waveforms including cathodic current followed by anodic current for a predetermined time as taught by Taylor because use of the pulsed electric field would produce a corresponding pulsed current through the electroplating cell to cause a more uniform deposition of metal over the entire surface of a microrough substrate (col. 6, ll. 37-39). Regarding claim 12, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the waveguide has an inner diameter of approximately 7mm and a corrugation period of 1.38mm. However, Suthar teaches a copper waveguide tube (Fig. 1) having a 2 mm internal diameter and the inside corrugations have a period of 340 µ m (Fig. 1; p. 1, col. 2, para. 3). Although the dimension varies, the ratio of the corrugation period and the inner diameter is close to each other, i.e., 340 µm/2mm = 0.17 as taught by Suthar and 1.38mm/7mm = 0.20 as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting the dimension of the corrugation period and the inner diameter of the waveguide as claimed because when the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device . MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Regarding claims 14-15, Suthar in view of Taylor teaches applying the one or more waveforms to the mandrel and anode to control electrodeposition of copper to the mandrel (Suthar, Fig. 2(c); Taylor, col. 7, ll. 66-67). Further, the designations “conformally deposits the copper to the mandrel without dog bone features” in claim 14 and “results in keyholes through the waveguide internal corrugations” in claim 15 do not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the step “applying the one or more waveforms to the mandrel and anode to control electrodeposition of copper to the mandrel .” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, th ese designations are not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04. Regarding claim 16 , Suthar teaches excising the mandrel includes dissolving the mandrel using a hot concentrated caustic solution (p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: after the electroplating, the mandrel was placed in a boiling bath of NaOH to dissolve the Aluminum chemically). Regarding claim 18 , Suthar teaches a method of manufacturing a corrugated copper microwave waveguide (p. 1, col. 2, para. 2: corrugated copper waveguide) , the method comprising: placing a mandrel with external corrugations (Fig. 2(c): electroforming; (2) corrugated Al mandrel) in an electrolyte bath (Fig. 2(c): (3) electroplating showing the Al Mandrel in an electrolyte bath) substantially devoid of chemical agents which decrease copper electrode deposit purity and/or resistivity and/or which result in outgassing (no such additional chemical agents are disclosed for the electroforming) ; locating a copper anode in the bath proximate the mandrel (Fig. 2(c): (3) electroplating showing a Cu electrode in the bath proximate the mandrel) ; applying an electric field to the mandrel and anode (Fig. 2(c): (3) electroplating showing an electric field applied between the Al Mandrel and a Cu electrode as an anode) ; removing the mandrel and the resulting conformal electroform from the electrolyte bath (p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: after the electroplating, the mandrel was placed in a boiling bath of NaOH to dissolve the Aluminum chemically) ; and dissolving the mandrel resulting in a microwave waveguide with internal corrugations (Fig. 2(c): (4); p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: the complete etching of Aluminum leaves behind the plated structure as the final electroformed product) . Suthar does not disclose the applied electric field has repeated cathodic current and anodic current waveforms . However, Taylor teaches electrodeposition of metals into microscopic recesses on the surface of a substrate and formation of uniform layers of electrodeposited metal on a substrate (col. 1, ll. 21-24) using a modulated reversing electric field (col. 6, ll. 3 2 -3 3 ). T he applied electric field has repeated cathodic current and anodic current waveforms ( Fig. 1: repeated current signals; col. 8, ll. 1-3: The waveform comprises a cathodic pulse followed by an anodic pulse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar by using a modulated electric field with repeated cathodic current and anodic current waveforms as taught by Taylor because it would achieve uniform filling of trenches and vias in the substrates (col. 6, ll. 16-18). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). The designation “ to electrodeposit a conformal copper electroform to the mandrel ” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the step “applying repeated cathodic current one or more waveforms to the mandrel and anode .” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, this designation is not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04. Regarding claim 19 , Suthar teaches the waveguide internal corrugations have a sub-millimeter width (Fig. 1: the corrugation width is the gap G 180 µm) . Regarding claim 20 , Suthar teaches the waveguide internal corrugations have a sub-millimeter distance between adjacent corrugations (Fig. 1: the distance between adjacent corrugations is (P-G) = 160 µm) . Regarding claim 22 , Suthar teaches the mandrel is made of aluminum (p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: Al mandrel). Regarding claims 23 and 26-27, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 18. Suthar does not teach the waveforms include a cathodic current followed by an anodic current repeated for a predetermined time (claim 23) or the waveguide thickening method that includes applying a cathodic current followed by an anodic current for a predetermined time resulting in a smooth surface (claims 26-27). However, Taylor teaches a rectangular modulated reverse electric field waveform is used (Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 66-67). The waveform comprises a cathodic pulse followed by an anodic pulse (col. 8, ll. 1-3) repeated for a predetermined time (Fig. 1: current signals repeated to achieve the desired metal plating on the substrate). Here, the step including applying a cathodic current waveform followed by an anodic current waveform for a predetermined time is deemed to the waveguide thickening method to achieve the desired thickness after a predetermined time . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by using repeated waveforms including cathodic current followed by the anodic current for a predetermined time as taught by Taylor because use of the pulsed electric field would produce a corresponding pulsed current through the electroplating cell to cause a more uniform deposition of metal over the entire surface of a microrough substrate (col. 6, ll. 37-39). Regarding claim 30, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 18, but fail to teach the waveguide has an inner diameter of approximately 7mm and a corrugation period of 1.38mm. However, Suthar teaches a copper waveguide tube (Fig. 1) having a 2 mm internal diameter and the inside corrugations have a period of 340 µm (Fig. 1; p. 1, col. 2, para. 3). Although the dimension varies, the ratio of the corrugation period and the inner diameter is close to each other, i.e., 340 µm/2mm = 0.17 as taught by Suthar and 1.38mm/7mm = 0.20 as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting the dimension of the corrugation period and the inner diameter of the waveguide as claimed because when the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device . MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Regarding claims 32-33, Suthar in view of Taylor teaches applying the one or more waveforms to the mandrel and anode to control electrodeposition of copper to the mandrel (Suthar, Fig. 2(c); Taylor, col. 7, ll. 66-67). Further, the designations “conformally deposits the copper to the mandrel without dog bone features” in claim 32 and “results in keyholes through the waveguide internal corrugations” in claim 33 do not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the step “applying the one or more waveforms to the mandrel and anode to control electrodeposition of copper to the mandrel .” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. Here, th ese designations are not given patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. MPEP 2111.04. Regarding claim 34 , Suthar teaches excising the mandrel includes dissolving the mandrel using a hot concentrated caustic solution (p. 2, col. 2, para. 3: after the electroplating, the mandrel was placed in a boiling bath of NaOH to dissolve the Aluminum chemically). Regarding claim 36, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1. Suthar does not disclose the bath is devoid of brighteners, accelerators, and levelers. However, Taylor teaches electrodeposition of metals into microscopic recesses on the surface of a substrate and formation of uniform layers of electrodeposited metal on a substrate (col. 1, ll. 21-24). Traditionally, the plating bath has small amounts of brighteners and levelers for obtaining a bright, shiny, and smooth surface of the deposited metal (col. 5, para. 3-4). But Taylor teaches deposit a metal by electrodeposition into small trenches and vias using a modulated reversing electric field, using a plating bath that is substantially devoid of levelers and/or brighteners (col. 6, ll. 30-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar by controlling the deposit of metal by using a modulated electric field in a bath devoid of levelers and/or brighteners as taught by Taylor because it would still achieve uniform filling of trenches and vias in the substrates (col. 6, ll. 16-18). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding claim 37, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1, including the bath includes copper ions (Taylor, col. 16, ll. 10-11: aqueous acidic copper sulfate). Regarding claim 3 8 , Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1, including the bath includes an ionic conductivity medium (Taylor, col. 16, ll. 10-11: aqueous acidic copper sulfate) and one or more recrystallization mediums (col. 6, ll. 21-22: a suppressor compound is poly(ethylene glycol); col. 6, ll. 27-28: the suppressor is typically used in combination with chloride ion; col. 16, ll. 10-11: an aqueous acidic copper sulfate bath). Here, the aqueous acidic copper sulfate bath would necessarily result in sulfuric acid, and the aqueous acidic bath with chloride ion would necessarily result in hydrochloric acid; since the sulfuric acid in the prior art is the same material as disclosed in the specification, it must have the same property, i.e., acting as a supporting electrolyte with good ionic conductivity for the electroforming reaction (see PGpub ¶74); also, since the polyethylene glycol and hydrochloric acid additions in the prior art are the same materials as disclosed in the specification, they must have the same property, i.e., aiding in the recrystallization of the electroformed copper ( PGpub ¶74)). Regarding claim 39, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1, including the bath includes sulfuric acid (Taylor, col. 16, ll. 10-11: aqueous acidic copper sulfate), chloride (col. 6, ll. 27-28: typically used in combination with chloride ion), and polyethylene glycol (col. 6, ll. 21-22, 27-28). Claim(s) 4 , 7, 17 , 21, 24, 28, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthar in view of Taylor, and further in view of Wang (US 2021/01 98799 ), supported by Rosenblum as an evidence (see the instant application publication ¶ 71 ). Regarding claims 4 and 17, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 1 , but fails to teach the copper anode is substantially oxygen free (claim 4) or the copper anode has an RRR value of approximately 100 (claim 17). However, Wang teaches an electrodeposition device including an electrolytic tank 10, a cathode 20, an anode 30, and a power supply source 40 (Fig. 1; ¶35). The anode 30 is a copper plate which has a purity of 99.99% (¶35). As evidenced by Rosenblum (S.S. Rosenblum, A simple method for producing high conductivity copper for low temperature applications, Cryogenics, 1977, 17(11), pp. 645-47) , copper with a purity of 99.96% has a RRR value approximately 100 and is oxygen-free copper (see PGpub ¶71). Thus, the copper anode of Wang having a purity of 99.99% must also have a RRR value approximately 100 and oxygen-free. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by utilizing a copper anode which is oxygen free and has an RRR value of approximately 100 because such anode has a very high purity for copper electrodeposition (Wang, ¶35). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). The designation “the copper waveguide has an RRR value of between 490 and 860” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the recited method. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. MPEP 2111.04. Here, the combined method of Suthar, Taylor and Wang is the same as the recited method, and the material of the copper anode is substantially the same with very high purity and a RRR value of approximately 100, and thus the obtained copper waveguide must have the same feature, i.e., a RRR value of between 490 and 860. Regarding claim 7, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 6. Suthar does not disclose the cathodic current on-times ranges from 0.1 to 100 ms and the anodic current on-times range from 0.1 to 10ms. However, Taylor further discloses the on-time of the cathodic pulse ranges from about 0.83 microseconds to about 50 milliseconds (col. 13, ll. 27-29), which overlap the claimed range of cathodic current on-times, and the anodic pulse may range from about 42 µ s to about 99 milliseconds (col. 13, ll. 32-34), which overlaps the claimed range of anodic current on-times . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar by adjusting the cathodic current on-times and the anodic current on-times within the claimed ranges because they are suitable on-times for the cathodic current followed by the anodic current for copper electrodeposition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Suthar and Taylor do not disclose the cathodic current ranges from 10 to 50 mA/cm 2 and the anodic curr e nt ranges from 5 to 200 mA/cm 2 . However, Wang teaches the current density for the electrodeposition is of 20~100 mA/cm 2 (¶37) with an applied direct current voltage (Fig. 1), which overlaps the recited ranges for both cathodic current and anodic current . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting the current density of both cathodic current and anodic current within the claimed ranges because they are the suitable current density for copper electrodeposition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 21 and 35, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 18, but fails to teach the copper anode is substantially oxygen free (claim 21) or the copper anode has an RRR value of approximately 100 (claim 35). However, Wang teaches an electrodeposition device including an electrolytic tank 10, a cathode 20, an anode 30, and a power supply source 40 (Fig. 1; ¶35). The anode 30 is a copper plate which has a purity of 99.99% (¶35). As evidenced by Rosenblum (S.S. Rosenblum, A simple method for producing high conductivity copper for low temperature applications, Cryogenics, 1977, 17(11), pp. 645-47) , copper with a purity of 99.96% has a RRR value approximately 100 and is oxygen-free copper (see PGpub ¶71). Thus, the copper anode of Wang having a purity of 99.99% must also have a RRR value approximately 100 and oxygen-free. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by utilizing a copper anode which is oxygen free and has an RRR value of approximately 100 because such anode has a very high purity for copper electrodeposition (Wang, ¶35). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). The designation “the copper waveguide has an RRR value of between 490 and 860” does not further limit the method as claimed because it is the intended result of the recited method. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In method claims, it is the overall method steps that are given patentable weight not the intended result thereof because the intended result does not materially alter the overall method. MPEP 2111.04. Here, the combined method of Suthar, Taylor and Wang is the same as the recited method, and the material of the copper anode is substantially the same with very high purity and a RRR value of approximately 100, and thus the obtained copper waveguide must have the same feature, i.e., a RRR value of between 490 and 860. Regarding claim s 24 and 28 , Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claim 23. Suthar does not disclose the cathodic current on-times ranges from 0.1 to 100 ms and the anodic current on-times range from 0.1 to 10ms (claim 24) or the cathodic on-time of 10 to 50 ms and the anodic current on-times range from 1 to 5 ms (claim 28) . However, Taylor further discloses the on-time of the cathodic pulse ranges from about 0.83 microseconds to about 50 milliseconds (col. 13, ll. 27-29), which overlap the claimed range s of cathodic current on-times, and the anodic pulse may range from about 42 µs to about 99 milliseconds (col. 13, ll. 32-34), which overlaps the claimed range s of anodic current on-times. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar by adjusting the cathodic current on-times and the anodic current on-times within the claimed ranges because they are suitable on-times for the cathodic current followed by the anodic current for copper electrodeposition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Suthar and Taylor do not disclose the cathodic current ranges from 10 to 50 mA/cm 2 and the anodic current ranges from 5 to 200 mA/cm 2 (claim 24) or cathodic current ranges from 30 to 100 mA/cm 2 and the anodic current ranges from 50 to 100 mA/cm 2 (claim 28). However, Wang teaches the current density for the electrodeposition is of 20~100 mA/cm 2 (¶37) with an applied direct current voltage (Fig. 1), which overlaps the recited ranges for both cathodic current and anodic current . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting the current density of both cathodic current and anodic current within the claimed ranges because they are the suitable current density for copper electrodeposition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Claim(s) 8 , 1 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 , 25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthar in view of Taylor, and further in view of Tomaszewski (US 4462874 ). Regarding claims 8 and 11, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claims 6 and 10 respectively, but fails to teach the predetermined time is between 24 and 48 hours. However, Tomaszewski teaches electrodepositing a fine-grained ductile, adherent copper strike on conductive substrates (col. 2, ll. 47-48) . The electrolyte is electrolyzed by passage of current between the cathode and anode for a period of time of about 1 minute to as long as several hours and even days in order to deposit the desired thickness of copper on the cathodic substrate (col. 2, ll. 56-61), which overlaps the recited time between 24 and 48 hours. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting electrodepositing time within the claimed range because the time is predetermined to deposit the desired thickness of copper on the cathodic substrate (col. 2, ll. 59-61). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 25 and 29, Suthar and Taylor discloses all limitations of claims 23 and 27 respectively, but fails to teach the predetermined time is between 24 and 48 hours. However, Tomaszewski teaches electrodepositing a fine-grained ductile, adherent copper strike on conductive substrates (col. 2, ll. 47-48). The electrolyte is electrolyzed by passage of current between the cathode and anode for a period of time of about 1 minute to as long as several hours and even days in order to deposit the desired thickness of copper on the cathodic substrate (col. 2, ll. 56-61), which overlaps the recited time between 24 and 48 hours. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting electrodepositing time within the claimed range because the time is predetermined to deposit the desired thickness of copper on the cathodic substrate (col. 2, ll. 59-61). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Claim(s) 13 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthar in view of Taylor, and further in view of Ma ( CN114204242, machine translation used for citation ). Regarding claim s 13 and 31 , Suthar and Taylor disclose all limitations of claim s 1 and 18 respectively , but fail to teach the corrugations are rectangular in cross section. However, Ma teaches a waveguide for transmission of electromagnetic waves in a millimeter-wave band (p. 1, para. 1). The preparation method of the waveguide is forming the inner and outer walls on the surface of the core mold by electroplating (p. 2, para. 6: Step 2) followed by dissolving and removing the core mold to form the corrugated tube (p. 2, para. 7: Step 3). The outer wall of the corrugated tube is a conductive layer made of copper, and the cross-sectional shape of the bellows is a rounded rectangle, a circle or an ellipse (Fig. 1: bellow 2; p. 2, last two para.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suthar and Taylor by adjusting the cross section of the corrugation as a rectangular shape because it is a suitable cross-sectional shape for the waveguide (p. 2, last para.) , and the substitution of cross-sectional shape of corrugations with the one with rectangular shape is a matter of choice and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular shape is significant. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6788 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Luan Van can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8521 . 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. SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795