The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, in the heading immediately preceding paragraph [0004] and page 6, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” (i.e. page 1) and inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” (i.e. page 6), respectively for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 6, in paragraph [0048], 10th line therein, note that --throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “features” and note that “2A – 6C” should be rewritten as --2A-2E, 3, 4, 5A-5D, 6A-6C-- for consistency with the numbering of these drawings, respectively for appropriate characterizations. Page 7, in paragraph [0050], 13th, 15th lines therein and page 9, in paragraph [0053], 9th line therein, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten as --the resonator-- to indicate the intended feature, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. At the following instances, note that the following pronouns need to be rewritten to indicate the corresponding intended feature for clarity and completeness of description: “they” (i.e. in paragraph [0050], 16th line therein; in paragraph [0053], second line therein). Page 8, in paragraph [0051], third line therein, note that --mode-- should be inserted after “each” for an appropriate characterization. Page 9, in paragraph [0053], 6th line therein, note that --thereby-- should be inserted prior to “causing” for an appropriate characterization. Page 9, in paragraph [0054], 4th line therein, note that thew recitation of “is terminated (as illustrated in FIG. 1A)” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear what characterizes “terminated” and whether “FIG. 1A” depicts such a “terminated” feature, and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 10, in paragraph [0055], 13th line therein, note that label “605” is vague in meaning, especially since no such reference label actually appears in FIGs. 1H & 1I, and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Pages 11 & 12, in paragraph [0057], note that the following acronyms (eps, α) are respectively vague in meaning and thus appropriate definition (i.e. in words) is needed for clarity and completeness of description; note that the mathematical designation “e-” should be rewritten as --10--- as the respective instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 12, in paragraph [0059], second line therein, note that --as illustrated in FIG. 2B-- should be inserted after “110” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 13, in paragraph [0061], 4th & 5th lines therein, note that the recitation of “FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of … resonator 105 in the shape of a truncated cone” is vague in meaning, especially since FIG. 3 does not appear to depict any “cross-sectional view” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 14, in paragraph [0062], second line therein, note that the recitation of “The loop” is vague in meaning, especially since no “loop” has been previously established and thus appropriate clarification is needed; 5th line therein, note that the recitation of “a pair of poles in the right half plane …” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 15, in paragraph [0064], third line therein, note that --(not shown)-- should be inserted after “120” for an appropriate characterization; 17th line therein, note that the recitation of “approximately 305 of the energy” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 16, in paragraph [0065], 10th line therein, note that the recitation of “its hermiticity” should be rewritten as --the hermiticity thereof-- for an appropriate characterization. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following reference labels appearing in the indicated drawings need a corresponding specification description for clarity and completeness of description: FIGs. 1B, 1C (z, r); FIG. 1B, “Er”; FIG. 1C, “Ez”; FIG. 4, all labels and descriptive wording therein; FIG. 5A (521, 531); FIGs. 5C, 5D, 6B, all descriptive wording and dimensions therein; FIGs. 6A, 6C, “615”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIGs. 1H & 1I, note that one of the two labels “105” should be rewritten as --605-- respectively in each drawing, such as to be commensurate with the specification description of those drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification needs to provide corresponding descriptions of the distribution with at least 30% of the energy, as recited in claim 12 and the volume of the oscillator being less than 20 cubic centimeters, as recited in claim 18.
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 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 8, for the “height”, note that the recited range of “between 0.2 millimeters and 2 millimeters” does not appear consistent with what is disclosed in the specification description (i.e. 0.5 mm to 2 mm) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 18, line 1, note that the recitation of “the volume of the oscillator is” should be rewritten as --the oscillator has a volume that is-- for an appropriate characterization.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeedkia et al in view of the Wang et al publication (cited by applicants’).
Saeedkia et al (i.e. FIG. 2) discloses a system (i.e. module 11), comprising: a first whispering gallery mode resonator (i.e. dielectric resonator (12) of cylindrical shape (i.e. as per claim 7) which is configured to support the whispering gallery mode, as described in paragraph [0064]); a first waveguide (i.e. dielectric waveguide (14) as per claim 2) operatively coupled to the first whispering gallery mode resonator (12), where the first whispering gallery mode resonator (12) includes a resonant mode operable at a frequency greater than 110 GHz (i.e. the mode of operation of the whispering gallery mode resonator (12) operates between 30 GHz and 3 THz, as described in paragraph [0065]). Regarding claim 3, as evident from FIG. 2, the dielectric waveguide (14) is coupled to a second metal waveguide (e.g. one of input/output couplers (20/22) configured as metal waveguides). Regarding claim 4, as evident from FIG. 2, the first dielectric waveguide (14) and the first whispering gallery mode resonator (12) are disposed adjacent to each other to provide for the desired coupling therebetween, and thus the first dielectric waveguide (14) and the first whispering gallery mode resonator (12) can be characterized as overlapping each other. Regarding claim 15, note that the whispering gallery mode resonator (12) can be characterized as a filter, especially since the resonator (12) provides a very narrow and sharp filter response at the resonance frequency as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, Saeedkia et al does not disclose that the first whispering gallery mode resonator is comprised of diamond.
The Wang et al publication exemplarily discloses in FIG. 1(a), a whispering gallery mode diamond resonator (i.e. disk shape resonator made of diamond).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have realized the cylindrical first whispering gallery mode resonator in Saeedkia et al with a diamond material, consistent with the exemplary teaching in Wang et al. Such a modification would have been considered as an obvious substitution of art recognize equivalent whispering gallery mode resonators. Especially since Saeedkia et al explicitly suggests that any art recognized material (e.g. such as diamond) would have been usable as the material of the whispering gallery mode resonator (e.g. see paragraph [0071] in Saeedkia et al), thereby suggesting the obviousness of the modification. Regarding claim 6, note that as an obvious consequence of the above modification, the resultant combination would necessarily have included the first dielectric waveguide (14) mounted on a substrate (i.e. plate (15) in Saeedkia et al) consistent with the teaching in Saeedkia et al and necessarily have included the first whispering gallery mode resonator mounted to the substrate through a post (i.e. of SiO2 material in Wang et al) consistent with the teaching in Wang et al.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the preceding rejection as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flory et al (cited by applicants’).
Note that the above resultant obvious combination discloses the claimed invention except for disclosing an oscillator including the first whispering gallery mode resonator in combination with an amplifier, as set forth in claim 17.
Flory et al (i.e. Figure 2) discloses an exemplary oscillator (i.e. 20) including a whispering gallery mode resonator (i.e. 22) in combination with an amplifier (i.e. feedback 25).
Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to have combined the above references to have further modified the whispering gallery mode resonator in the oscillator of Flory et al to have taken the form of the whispering gallery mode resonator from the resultant combination as an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent whispering gallery mode resonators, especially since the generic nature of the whispering gallery mode resonator in Flory et al would have suggested that any art recognize equivalent whispering gallery mode resonator (e.g. such as the diamond whispering gallery mode resonator of the resultant combination) would have been usable, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claims 5, 9-14, 16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bert et al and Taber both pertain to dielectric resonators operating in a whispering gallery mode. Pance et al pertains of a dielectric resonator having a truncated conical shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee