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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged.
Applicant has canceled the claims to the non-elected invention and thus the restriction is deemed moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, the phrase “stub is engages” should instead read as --stub engages-- to improve the grammatical form.
In Claim 10, it appears the phrase “RF cavity further comprises a flange” should instead read as --RF cavity core further comprises a flange-- since it is the core that has a flange and a cavity, i.e. an open area, cannot have a physical element such as a flange.
In Claim 10 (line 2), “An” should be --an--.
In Claim 10 (line 4), “A” should be --a--.
In Claim 10 (line 6), “A” should be --a--.
In Claim 15, the phrase “stub is engages” should instead read as --stub engages-- to improve the grammatical form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 16-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 14, the phrase “the posts” lacks antecedent basis. Should Claim 14 depend from --Claim 11-- instead of “Claim 1”? If so, then also the term “resonator” should be --filter--.
In Claim 16, the phrase “the second recess” lacks antecedent basis. Should Claim 16 depend from --Claim 11-- instead of “Claim 1”? If so, then also in Claim 16 the term “resonator” should be -filter--. Also, the term “resonator” in Claims 17 and 18 should instead be --filter--.
Claims 17-18 inherit the defects of Claim 16 by virtue of their dependency.
To expedite prosecution, the examiner has examined the claims in view of the prior art based on suggested changes and examiner’s interpretations of what applicant meant to claim, see below.
Claims 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 is identical to Claim 2. Claim 15 is identical to Claim 6, Claim 19 is identical to Claim 10. Thus these claims fail to further limit Claim 1 differently. It appears that claims 12, 15, and 19 should instead depend from Claim 11 and the term “resonator” should instead read as --filter-- in each of Claims 12, 15, and 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
To expedite prosecution, the examiner has examined the claims in view of the prior art based on suggested changes and examiner’s interpretations of what applicant meant to claim, see below.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5,329,687) in view of Sinanis et al. (“A 2.2-4.2 GHz Low-Loss Tunable Bandpass Filter based on Low Cost manufacturing of ABS Polymer”, cited by applicant).
Scott (e.g. Figs. 2-3D) teaches a tunable filter/resonator including:
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, and RF cavity core (e.g. housing 201) defining an RF cavity (i.e. the hollow inside of the core/housing), the RF cavity core further comprising a post/posts (e.g. rods 204A-C) positioned within the RF cavity, a cover covering the RF cavity (e.g. 202 is a cover having tuning screws for tuning the respective resonator rods), wherein a gap is defined between the cover and the post rods (e.g. see Fig. 3C ,a gap is formed between the cover and top of the rods/posts); wherein the RF cavity core is an injection molded plastic with a metalized electroplating (e.g. the housing/core and the rods/posts are integrally injection molded/formed of plastic/ULTEM, e.g. see Col. 3 lines 29-43, and plated with a metal conductive film, e.g. see the abstract, and the specific method of making such as electroplating and injection molding is not patentable in an apparatus claim where only the final product structural details are patentable).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, wherein the RF cavity core further comprises an input port to the RF Cavity an output port from the RF Cavity (e.g. see ports 820 in Figs. 8-9, 1 ,and the abstract, the ports are attached to the core/housing).
However, Scott does not teach the cover is a flexible membrane and an actuator/actuators configured to cause movement of the flexible membrane and vary the distance between the membrane and the respective post/posts (Claims 1 and 11)
Sinanis provides the general teaching that tuning of respective posts in a cavity filter can be done by a membrane cover having actuators that flex the membrane to change the gap between the membrane and the top of the respective posts (e.g. see Figs, 1, 3, and section III and section IV C.)
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Scott tuning cover to instead be a flexible membrane with respective actuators for the tuning of each post/rod such as taught by Sinanis, because the flexible membrane tuning would have been a mere substitution of art-recognized alternative tuning cover structures for the same purpose of tuning for cavity post resonators from the top of the device while providing the advantageous benefits of a high tuning ratio and high quality factor such as generally taught by Sinanis (e.g. see section I.).
Claims 2, 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5,329,687) in view of Sinanis et al. (“A 2.2-4.2 GHz Low-Loss Tunable Bandpass Filter based on Low Cost manufacturing of ABS Polymer”, cited by applicant) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tkadlec et al. (US 2020/0076033).
The combination of Scott and Sinanis teaches a tunable filter as described above and the main cavity can be considered a second recess. However, the combination does not appear to teach a first recess that the cover/membrane is position in (Claims 2, 12), or a flange having mounting holes (Claims 10, 19).
Tkadlec (e.g. Figs. 7 and 5) teaches another recess (i.e. the claimed first recess) for positioning the cover (e.g. see Fig. 7, the cover sits in a recess of the housing above the recess that forms the main cavity having the resonators), and a flange has mounting holes (e.g. the flange is formed of flange portions 128 that have holes for mounting the device to another surface, and see [0065]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Scott/Sinanis device to have a recess in the housing to mount the membrane/cover and to have a flange having portions with holes such as taught by Tkadlec because the recess in the housing would have provided the benefit of ease of positioning the membrane/cover to the housing accurately by virtue of the form fit, and the flange with holes would have provided the benefit of securely mounting to a surface of another device such as generally taught by Tkadlec ([0065]), thereby suggesting the obviousness of the modifications.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5,329,687) in view of Sinanis et al. (“A 2.2-4.2 GHz Low-Loss Tunable Bandpass Filter based on Low Cost manufacturing of ABS Polymer”, cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kesler et al. (US 2013/0057364).
The combination of Scott and Sinanis teach a filter as described above including the plating can include copper (e.g. see Scott Col. 4, and as noted above the product by process limitation of electroplating is not given weight).
However, the combination does not teach that the ULTEM of Scott can instead be ABS.
Kesler provides the general teaching that ULTEM and ABS are alternatives for housing materials (e.g. see [0866-0867]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Scott/Sinanis device to have the ULTEM instead be ABS such as generally taught by Kesler, because ULTEM and ABS are art-recognized alternative materials for forming resonator housings as is recognized by Kesler.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5,329,687) in view of Sinanis et al. (“A 2.2-4.2 GHz Low-Loss Tunable Bandpass Filter based on Low Cost manufacturing of ABS Polymer”, cited by applicant), and Tkadlec et al. (US 2020/0076033) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kesler et al. (US 2013/0057364).
The combination of Scott, Sinanis, and Tkadlec teach a filter as described above.
However, the combination does not teach that the ULTEM of Scott can instead be ABS.
Kesler provides the general teaching that ULTEM and ABS are alternatives for housing materials (e.g. see [0866-0867]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Scott/Sinanis/Tkadlec device to have the ULTEM instead be ABS such as generally taught by Kesler, because ULTEM and ABS are art-recognized alternative materials for forming resonator housings as is recognized by Kesler.
Claims 4, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5,329,687) in view of Sinanis et al. (“A 2.2-4.2 GHz Low-Loss Tunable Bandpass Filter based on Low Cost manufacturing of ABS Polymer”, cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0120631).
The combination of Scott and Sinanis teaches a filter as described above.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach that the post is tapered such that a first width of the post proximate to the membrane is smaller than a second width of the post proximate to a base of the RF cavity core (Claim 4) or the RF cavity is tapered such that a first width of the RF cavity proximate to the membrane is wider than a second width of the cavity proximate to a base of the RF cavity core (Claims 5, 14).
Wang (e.g. see Figs. 4-5) teaches the post tapers and the cavity tapers in the same manner as claims 4, 5, and 14 (and see the abstract).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Scott/Sinanis device to have the resonators and housing tapered such as generally taught by Wang in the same manner as Claims 4, 5, and 14, because it would have provided the benefits of increasing the volume of the resonant cavity and reducing insertion loss and making the device lighter such as taught by Wang (see the abstract).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5,329,687) in view of Sinanis et al. (“A 2.2-4.2 GHz Low-Loss Tunable Bandpass Filter based on Low Cost manufacturing of ABS Polymer”, cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of New Scale Technologies “M3-L Linear Actuator”.
The combination of Scott and Sinanis teaches a cavity filter having actuators as describe above. Sinanis also describes the actuators as M3-L from New Scale technologies. However, Sinanis does not appear to clearly show or state that the actuators have stubs as in Claims 6 and 15.
New Scale Technologies “M3-L Linear Actuator” provides the specific details of the M3-L actuator including stubs (“bullet nose tip” described at the top of page 2) for pressing such as shown in page 2 (“Push Configuration”).
It would have been considered obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Scott/Sinanis actuators to have the stub/ bullet nose tips of the M3-L actuators such as taught by New Scale technologies as the specific pressing means for the M3-L actuators in Sinanis, especially since Sinanis teaches the M3-L actuator and New Scale technologies is the manufacturer of the M3-L and teaches the stub is used with the M3-L thus the stub would have been a mere selection of a known pushing element for such an actuator where Sinanis appears to only describe the M3-L without the specific detail thus requiring one to look to known specific pushing means.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1762. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/Stephen E. Jones/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843